MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410758022 · doi:10.1089/pmr.2024.0073

An Educational Initiative Describing Clinician Teachers’ Experiences Following Serious Illness Communication Skills Faculty Development Training

2025· article· en· W4410758022 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Helen James, Jacquelin Forsey, Kyle Albuquerque-Boutilier, Jillian Gustin, Warren Lewin

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative Medicine Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoThe Wilson CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversity Health Network Foundation
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Medical educationPsychologyCommunication skillsProfessional developmentFaculty developmentPedagogyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Serious illness communication skills (SICS) are essential competencies for clinicians to possess. Unfortunately, SICS teaching is not routinely taught and many clinician teachers (CTs) never received training on how to teach them. We funded two cohorts of CTs to learn an evidence-based approach to SICS teaching to scale a unified approach to such training. Objective: The primary aim of this study was to explore CT experiences and attitudes toward SICS teaching following completion of VitalTalk Faculty Development training. Our secondary aim was to identify perceived barriers and enablers experienced by CTs in the translation of newly acquired skills into the workplace. Design/Measurements: Survey and semi-structured interviews administered post-training. Setting: Large metropolitan academic hospital in Canada. Fifteen (83%) of CTs completed the survey and 6 (40%) were interviewed. Participants were 38 years old (avg), female (80%), physicians (87%), nurse practitioners (13%), and in practice 8 years (avg). Results: One-hundred percent of participants would recommend the course to colleagues, believing it increased their SICS teaching quality and comfort to teach this topic in varied settings. Post-training, 90% of cohort 1 and 0% of cohort 2 taught SICS in workshops. Seventy percent of cohort 1 and 60% of cohort 2 taught SICS at the bedside across 10 specialties and interdisciplinary groups. Top cited teaching enablers were funding, protected time, and administrative support. All participants reported being likely to teach a workshop within the year. Eighty percent reported training increased their comfort to lead such conversations and 67% reported more frequently engaging in them. Qualitative analysis revealed that successful implementation requires SICS teaching to be valued at every level of the institution. Conclusion: Investing in faculty development for a group of CTs led to increased confidence in teaching about and having serious illness conversations and informed needs for a local community-of-practice primed to rapidly scale SICS teaching.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.353
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalliative Medicine ReportsSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207