MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313641111 · doi:10.1111/medu.15017

Residents as supervisors: How senior residents make ad hoc entrustment decisions

2023· article· en· W4313641111 on OpenAlexafffund
Kayla Nelson, Sarah McQuillan, Andrea Gingerich, Glenn Regehr

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaChild, Adolescent and Family Mental HealthUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
FundersRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
KeywordsPost hocMedical educationPsychologyNursingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As residency programmes transition to competency-based medical education, there has been substantial inquiry into understanding how ad hoc entrustment decisions are made by attending supervisors in the clinical context. However, although attendings are ultimately responsible for the decisions and actions of resident trainees, senior residents are often the ones directly supervising junior residents enrolled in competency-based training programmes. This clinical dynamic has been largely overlooked in the ad hoc entrustment literature. The purpose of this study was to explore the considerations senior residents entertain when making ad hoc entrustment decisions for their junior resident colleagues. METHODS: In semi-structured interviews, 11 senior resident supervisors (third, fourth and fifth year) in obstetrics and gynaecology described how they entrust junior residents with clinical activities in the moment. Following constructivist grounded theory methodology, data were iteratively collected and coded with constant comparison until theoretical sufficiency was determined. RESULTS: Senior residents described many similar considerations as attendings regarding ad hoc entrustment of junior residents, including patient safety, desire to optimise the learning environment, junior resident qualities (such as discernment and communication skills), learner handover from colleagues, and situational factors. Uniquely, senior residents discussed how their role as a middle manager and their desire to protect the junior resident (from burnout, becoming a second victim and from attendings) impacts their decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Although senior residents make ad hoc entrustment decisions with some similar considerations to attendings, they also seem to think about additional factors. It may be that these different considerations need to be accommodated in documentation of ad hoc entrustment decisions if these documents are to be used for high-stakes summative entrustment decisions made by competency committees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207