Developing a collaborative, humanistic interprofessional healthcare culture: a multi-site study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:Developing a collaborative, humanistic interprofessional healthcare culture requires optimal relational skills, respect, interpersonal cohesion, and role clarity. We developed a longitudinal curriculum to engender these skills and values in institutional leaders. We report results of a qualitative study at seven US-based academic health centers to identify participants’ learning. Methods:At each institution, participants from at least three different professions met in small group sessions twice-monthly over nine months. Sessions focused on relational capacities to enhance leadership and professionalism, and utilized critical reflection and experiential learning to promote teamwork, self-knowledge, communication skills, and address challenges encountered by a healthcare team. Participants completed reflective responses to open-ended questions asking what knowledge, insights, or skills they gained by working in this interprofessional group and applications of their learning. Five investigators analyzed the anonymized responses using the constant comparative method. Results:Overarching themes centered on relationships and the strength of the relational nature of the learning. We observed learning on three levels: a) Intrapersonal learning included self-awareness, mindfulness, and empathy for self that translated to reflections on application of these to teamwork and teaching; b) Interpersonal learning concerned relational skills and teaching about listening, understanding others’ perspectives, appreciation/respect for colleagues, and empathy for others; c) Systems level learning included teaching skills about resilience, conflict management, team dynamics and cultural norms, and appreciation of resources from interprofessional colleagues. Discussion:A curriculum focusing on humanistic teaching for leaders led to new insights and positive changes in relational perspectives. Learning occurred on multiple levels. Many learners reported revising previous assumptions, a marker for transformative learning. Humanistic faculty development can facilitate deep bonds between professions.
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 | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".