Patient Partners in Continuing Professional Development: Experience Developing an End-of-Life Care Program for Family Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Involvement of patients in continuing professional development (CPD) is less developed than in health professional education at undergraduate or postgraduate levels. Although patients are sometimes involved in delivering CPD, they are less likely to be involved in education planning. At our institution, patients have sometimes acted as consultants in the design of CPD. The problem we address is how to engage patients as partners throughout the design process. We applied principles of authentic patient engagement and lessons learned from patient involvement in undergraduate health professional education to the design of CPD for family physicians. We created a partnership between the CPD Office and Patient and Community Partnership for Education, a unit with a history of patient involvement in the education of health professional students. Practices for meaningful involvement were identified through literature review, environmental scan, and interviewing key informants, including patients involved in health professional education at the university. These principles and practices were applied to the development of a CPD module on end-of-life care. Patient partners contributed new perspectives and some CPD providers reassessed components of their own practice as a result. Lessons learned include the need for stakeholder buy-in; mechanisms to identify those patients best able to contribute expertise; ways to facilitate involvement that work for both patients and CPD providers; the importance of feedback mechanisms to patient partners; and recognition for patient contributions. CPD offices should view integration of patient partners in program planning as an opportunity to engage in ongoing quality improvement.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".