Supported Independence: The Role of Supervision to Help Trainees Manage Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Safe and effective supervised practice requires a negotiated partnership between trainees and their supervisors. Substantial work has explored how supervisors make judgments about trainees' readiness to safely engage in critical professional activities, yet less is known about how trainees leverage the support of supervisors when they perceive themselves to be at the limits of their abilities. The purpose of this study is to explore how trainees use supervisory support to navigate experiences of clinical uncertainty. METHOD: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors explored how novice emergency medicine trainees conceptualized the role of their supervisors during experiences of clinical uncertainty. They employed a critical incident technique to elicit stories from participants immediately following clinical shifts between July and September 2020, and asked participants to describe their experiences of uncertainty within the context of supervised practice. Using constant comparison, 2 investigators coded line-by-line and organized these stories into focused codes. The relationships between these codes were discussed by the research team, and this enabled them to theorize about the relationships between the emergent themes. RESULTS: Participants reported a strong desire for supported independence, where predictable and accessible supervisory structures enabled them to work semiautonomously through challenging clinical situations. They described a process of borrowing their supervisors' comfort during moments of uncertainty and mechanisms to strategically broadcast their evolving understanding of a situation to implicitly invoke (the right level of) support from their supervisors. They also highlighted challenges they faced when they felt insufficiently supported. CONCLUSIONS: By borrowing comfort from-or deliberately projecting their thinking to-supervisors, trainees aimed to strike the appropriate balance between independence for the purposes of learning and support to ensure safety. Understanding these strategic efforts could help educators to better support trainees in their growth toward self-regulation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".