Proceed with Caution: Assessing for and Increasing Psychological Safety in Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Teaching and Learning Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to understand resident perspectives on psychological safety in a large Obstetrics/Gynecology program in Ontario, Canada. The secondary objective was to describe the impact of an educational session on psychological safety. DESIGN: A nine-question survey was sent to all residents to assess perspectives on psychological safety during training. Fischer's exact test was used to explore associations between resident year (junior and senior) and associated perspectives on psychological safety. Based on perspectives expressed in the first survey, an educational session discussing the concept of psychological safety, strategies for increasing psychological safety, and links to resources was designed. SETTING: The survey was sent to all Obstetrics/Gynecology residents at McMaster, University, the third largest training program in Canada. The training session was presented at a virtual grand round; a pre- and post-session survey was distributed to attendees. RESULTS: Nineteen residents (56%) completed the first survey. A significant association was found between year and belief that the learning environment was psychologically safe. Results suggested that juniors tended to disagree more with this statement than senior residents. No other significant associations were found; however, there was a pattern suggesting that junior residents had lower perceptions of psychological safety. Eighteen (43%) grand rounds participants completed the pre-intervention survey. The education session resulted in a higher percentage of people claiming knowledge of psychological safety, feeling psychologically safe in their work environment, and knowledge of resources related to psychological safety. CONCLUSION: Overall, results suggest that junior residents may have lower levels of psychological safety than senior residents. In addition, an education session can increase awareness of educational concepts and where to access resources.
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 | 0.015 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".