Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rehearsal simulations are patient-specific case- matched tasks performed immediately prior to the actual task, with the objective of improving performance. OBJECTIVE: How does rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults impact how residents learn to engage in difficult conversations with families? STUDY DESIGN: Residents in the NICU performed case-matched video recorded rehearsal simulations, followed by actual antenatal consults. The purpose of antenatal consults is to prepare parents expecting a complication with their baby before birth. Questionnaires assessed changes in resident confidence and self-assessment of communication skills. Residents were interviewed for qualitative data to explore the overall impact of rehearsal simulation on their learning and performance. RESULTS: Thirteen residents participated. Rehearsal simulation improved confidence with a more organized approach of medical content and better communication techniques, allowing for a shift of focus from a checklist approach to building rapport and displaying empathy. CONCLUSIONS: While rehearsal simulation did not prepare residents for unexpected parent responses, trainees' increased confidence with medical content organization and communication techniques created space for reflection-in-action and compassionate approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".