66 Piloting a respectful challenges workshop in pediatric residency training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Unaddressed conflict has been shown to negatively impact resident wellness and patient safety, and development of communication and conflict resolution skills are key competencies in medical education. While there are a number of existing communication training programs directed at healthcare providers, these can be costly and difficult to accommodate in an already packed curriculum. We developed a conflict resolution workshop to address local conflict scenarios facing our residents that could be integrated into our program curriculum at no cost. Objectives Evaluate resident satisfaction with the addition of a “respectful challenges” workshop to our training program’s academic curriculum. Design/Methods We designed a two- hour workshop for pediatric residents at our institution focusing on addressing conflict during residency training. A didactic lecture outlining different approaches was followed by three role-playing scenarios with coaching (conflict with another resident, allied health and faculty). The workshop was facilitated by a senior resident and faculty identified by residents as “approachable”. Residents (PGY1-4) were asked to evaluate the workshop’s content and effectiveness as well as their own comfort addressing conflict using pre and post-surveys with Likert scales. Results of the survey were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results A total of 15 residents were involved in the workshop and completed the pre and post surveys. Eleven were female. Six indicated that they had some form of previous training in conflict management. All residents reported having experienced workplace conflict at least a few times per year, but most said they didn’t always address it (73%). Twelve (80%) thought it was either “quite” or “extremely important” that conflict resolution skills be taught in residency. All 15 residents felt that the scenarios represented real life and that the format was an appropriate way to discuss conflict in the workplace. The majority of residents felt the workshop helped them better understand their approach to conflict and allowed them to feel better prepared to face challenges in the future (14/15 and 11/15 rated as “quite” or “extremely”). Eighty percent of residents reported that they would feel more comfortable addressing workplace conflict after the workshop. Conclusion This concise workshop provided a foundation on conflict resolution for our residents. The use of role play and coaching during simulated scenarios was well received, and residents reported increased comfort approaching workplace conflict in the future. Further evaluation will be important to determine if residents translate these skills into practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".