MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385726261 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000005433

Having a Bad Day Is Not an Option: Learner Perspectives on Learner Handover

2023· article· en· W4385726261 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tammy Shaw, Kori A. LaDonna, Karen E. Hauer, Roy Khalifé, Leslie Sheu, Timothy Wood, Anne Montgomery, Scott Rauscher, Simran Aggarwal, Susan Humphrey‐Murto

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMedical Council of CanadaCARE CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidentialityScrutinyHandoverPsychologyMedical educationGossipPerspective (graphical)Grounded theoryProcess (computing)Qualitative researchPedagogyComputer scienceSocial psychologyMedicineSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Learner handover is the sharing of learner-related information between supervisors involved in their education. The practice allows learners to build upon previous assessments and can support the growth-oriented focus of competency-based medical education. However, learner handover also carries the risk of biasing future assessments and breaching learner confidentiality. Little is known about learner handover's educational impact, and what is known is largely informed by faculty and institutional perspectives. The purpose of this study was to explore learner handover from the learner perspective. METHOD: Constructivist grounded theory was used to explore learners' perspectives and beliefs around learner handover. Twenty-nine semistructured interviews were completed with medical students and residents from the University of Ottawa and University of California, San Francisco. Interviews took place between April and December 2020. Using the constant comparative approach, themes were identified through an iterative process. RESULTS: Learners were generally unaware of specific learner handover practices, although most recognized circumstances where both formal and informal handovers may occur. Learners appreciated the potential for learner handover to tailor education, guide entrustment and supervision decisions, and support patient safety, but worried about its potential to bias future assessments and breach confidentiality. Furthermore, learners were concerned that information-sharing may be more akin to gossip rather than focused on their educational needs and feared unfair scrutiny and irreversible long-term career consequences from one shared mediocre performance. Altogether, these concerns fueled an overwhelming pressure to perform. CONCLUSIONS: While learners recognized the rationale for learner handover, they feared the possible inadvertent short- and long-term impact on their training and future careers. Designing policies that support transparency and build awareness around learner handover may mitigate unintended consequences that can threaten learning and the learner-supervisor relationship, ensuring learner handover benefits the learner as intended.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.318 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207