MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283261677 · doi:10.1057/s41599-022-01221-5

Patient-centered care and interprofessional collaboration in medical resident education: Where we stand and where we need to go

2022· article· en· W4283261677 on OpenAlexaff
Arpita Gantayet-Mathur, Karenn Chan, Meena Kalluri

Bibliographic record

VenueHumanities and Social Sciences Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionCINAHLMedicineContext (archaeology)MEDLINEHealth careNursingMultidisciplinary approachMedical educationCurriculumPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Patient centered care (PCC) and interprofessional collaboration (IPC) remain important goals for all healthcare systems. While these tenets are a cornerstone of training for nursing and allied health professionals (AHPs), their role in internal medicine resident (IMR) training is unstructured and limited. We performed a narrative review to answer two questions, firstly ‘what is known about the attitudes and behaviors of internal medicine (IM) physicians and trainees with respect to PCC and IPC and how does this compare to AHPs?’ and secondly, ‘what evidence based interventions have been trialed to promote PCC and IPC in medical training?’ We searched databases including Cochrane, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and MedPortal. We reviewed 102 publications and found that medical residents tend to value PCC less than non-physician trainees. Hierarchical professional attitudes and a poor understanding of AHP roles are barriers to IPC, whereas diminished time for direct patient care, neglect of the patient’s context and social determinants of health, and lack of self-reflection are barriers to PCC. Published educational interventions for IMRs and AHPs have included classroom sessions, structured ward- and clinic-based interprofessional (IP) work, post-discharge care, home visits, and reflective practice. Interventions were evaluated using questionnaires/surveys, focus groups, tests, primary outcome assessments and ethnographic analysis. The most promising interventions are those that allow learners time for multidisciplinary observation, holistic patient assessments, engagement in care transitions and reflective practice. Based on the review findings we have made recommendations for integration of IPC and PCC training into IMR curricula. Future educational interventions should allow IMR observerships in a multidisciplinary team, introduce residents to the patient’s environment through home visits, incorporate patient/family perspectives in care, and include narrative reflections as part of professional development. Based on our findings and recommendations, these experiences can provide IMRs with much-needed exposure to collaborative, patient-centric care early in postgraduate training.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumanities and Social Sciences CommunicationsSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207