“Clinical café meeting” - a clinician peer support and case discussion meeting: A tool for reflective practice and consolidation of resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Previous studies have shown that Peer Support Programs (PSPs) promote workforce wellness by supporting clinicians during times of heightened stress and vulnerability (Keyser, et al., 2021). Inclusion of case discussions in PSPs can provide opportunity for reflective practice, quality improvement, and professional development, in addition to strengthening clinicians’ resilience. Objectives To describe the experience and perceived benefits reported by participants (psychiatrists) of a peer support and case discussion group meeting, of a clinical department of psychiatry (DOP) in Cape Breton, Canada, which the group calls “clinical café meeting”. Methods Qualitative data collected, were informal comments (with focus on the participants’ experience and perceived benefits) from the group participants during the once a month, one-hour clinical cafe meetings. Results From September 2015 to September 2021, attendance ranged from 2 to 10 participants. All participants voiced that, they see each meeting as an opportunity to “analyze their feelings and knowledge relevant to clinical practice situations, especially those associated with uncomfortable feelings (Atkins & Murphy reflective model, 1993), and challenges they face, in relation to the healthcare system. Many participants voiced how input from group participants help them with gaining a new perspective on practice situations that were discussed, and ideas on how they could deal with similar clinical situations or challenges, in a more robust way, in the future. Many participants also find the clinical café meetings to be helpful in consolidating their resilience. Conclusions PSP (with case discussion) participants, in a Canadian DOP, described their experience of the group meetings, as beneficial, including contributing to strengthening of their resilience. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 | 0.061 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".