Optimising the educational value of indirect patient care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Indirect patient care activities (IPCA) such as documentation, reviewing investigations and filling out forms require an increasing amount of physician time. While an essential part of patient care, rising rates of IPCA work correspond with increases in physician burnout and job dissatisfaction. It is not known how best to prepare residents in IPCA-heavy specialties (e.g. family medicine) for this aspect of their career. This study investigates how educators and residency programmes can optimise IPCA work during residency to best prepare residents for future practice. METHODS: Using Constructivist Grounded Theory, we conducted focus groups and individual interviews with 42 clinicians (19 family medicine residents, 16 family physicians in the first 5 years of practice and 7 family physician educators). All participants were connected to one family medicine residency programme. We analysed interview data iteratively, using a staged approach to constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: While residents, early career physicians and educators perceived the educational value of IPCAs differently, they all reported IPCAs as a necessary weight that family physicians carry throughout their career. Some residents described IPCAs as a burden, creating inequities in workload and interfering with other learning and personal opportunities. In contrast, educators conceptualised IPCAs as an opportunity to build and develop the skills required to carry the weight of IPCAs throughout their career. We make specific recommendations for helping residents recognise this educational opportunity, such as clarifying expectations, navigating equity, understanding purpose and maintaining consistency when teaching IPCAs. CONCLUSION: IPCAs are a key competency for many medical residents but require explicit pedagogical attention. If the educational opportunities are not made explicit, residents may miss the opportunity to develop strategies for practice management, professional boundaries, and administrative efficiencies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".