MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4377233850 · doi:10.1136/spcare-2023-acp.19

BOS3b.003 Utilizing simulated learning to develop non-clinical skills: a unique approach to improving advance care planning processes

2023· article· en· W4377233850 on OpenAlexaff
Cari Borenko, Lauren Thomas, Andrew Saunderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingHealth careAdvance care planningMedical educationSession (web analytics)MedicineNursingComputer sciencePalliative care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Simulation learning is often associated with clinical skills development, particularly for patients facing high risk urgent situations. In these learning environments, clinicians typically practice urgent acute skills such as Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation, intubation, and chest tube insertion. Recognizing how successful this learning method is for tangible skills, Fraser Health’s Regional Advance Care Planning (ACP) Team proposed this unique and innovative learning approach for use with other essential skills, namely communication. The teams’ objectives were: Increase familiarity with advance care planning processes, Facilitate knowledge translation of topics such as medical order designation, symptom management, and end of life care. Improve communication skills between interdisciplinary health care providers, patients and the people who matter most to them. Establish a debrief culture for reflection and learning. Demonstrate a shared decision making model. Methods Quality Improvement Results In 2022, pilot funding for the project was secured from the Physician Facilitated Engagement Program. An interdisciplinary panel of health care providers created two case studies. Following this, four interdisciplinary acute care simulation sessions were held at a community hospital. The sessions concluded with an extensive debriefing session and post-participation survey to assess confidence and provide suggestions for improvement. Conclusion In this oral presentation, details of the cases, debriefings and surveys will be shared and be the primary teaching tool. Participants will be encouraged to explore implementing this unique non clinical simulation learning in their own settings of care. Learners will be able to apply simulation learning approach to improve confidence of HCPs to engage in Advance Care Planning, Serious Illness, and End of Life conversations and processes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.013

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→