MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116891644 · doi:10.36834/cmej.70481

Seven ways to get a grip on facilitating bedside team rounding

2020· article· en· W3116891644 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Syed Ibrahim, Shirley Shuster, Deborah Aina, Don Thiwanka Wijeratne

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoundingCornerstoneHealth careMedicineMedical educationPsychologyNursingComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although classically considered a cornerstone of inpatient care, rounding at patients' bedsides is increasingly being replaced by rounding in workrooms. Workroom rounds may provide a sense of efficiency and comfort, however bedside rounds have multiple benefits for patients, trainees, and staff physicians. Alongside its benefits, there are human and institutional challenges when incorporating bedside rounding. This article aims to draw on our own experience of implementing bedside rounding at Kingston Health Sciences Centre, to guide staff physicians and institutions on how to implement bedside rounding effectively while overcoming its challenges. The following seven tips provide a framework to avoid pitfalls when implementing bedside team rounding on inpatient services.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education JournalSame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207