Pilot of a Training Format for Clinicians' Continuing Professional Development: Open House With Rotating Short Segments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Access to continuing professional development offered at lunchtime is limited by hospital scheduling that has staff members taking their lunch breaks at different times. To overcome this barrier, we developed a three-part training format with (1) a focus group segment soliciting participants' opinions on the training's target behavior, (2) a didactic segment introducing tools to support the behavior, and (3) a question-and-answer segment about the session topic. We rotated through these segments, each 15 minutes long, over 3 hours. Participants could join at any segment and experience the full curriculum after 45 minutes. Methods: We piloted this training format five times at three hospitals. Our training aimed to encourage clinicians to consistently inform involuntary patients about their Mental Health Act rights. We gauged the effect of the training and participants' opinions of the session using the Continuing Professional Development Reaction questionnaire and a session evaluation, respectively. Results: Continuing Professional Development-Reaction results (n = 80) showed a detectable increase in clinicians' intent to consistently give involuntary patients rights advice. Participants reported finding the training organized, informative, and valuable. Discussion: The open house with rotating short segments is a feasible and adaptable training format to engage clinicians in voluntary continuing professional development.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".