Basler Consensus Statement "Kommunikative und soziale Kompetenzen im Medizinstudium": Ein Positionspapier des GMA-Ausschusses Kommunikative und soziale Kompetenzen [Basel Consensus Statement "Communicative and Social Competencies in Medical Education": A Position Paper of the GMA Committee Communicative and Social Competencies]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[english] Purpose: The purpose of the position paper is to present a guideline about which communicative and social competencies medical students should have achieved at the end of their medical studies. This guideline is based on a consensus of experts from different disciplines and medical faculties. Referring to the English-speaking consensus statements developed in Toronto and Kalamazoo, the German speaking guideline has been called “Basel Consensus Statement”. Methods: The guideline was developed in three steps, an initial two-day workshop in Basel, followed by a two-step Delphi-survey. The aim of the Delphi-survey was to evaluate the competencies and educational objectives that were developed at the workshop in Basel according to their importance for medical education. 30 persons attended the workshop. They were also the target group for the first Delphi-round. Recipients of the second Delphi-round were the members of the Association for Medical Education in German-speaking countries. 77 persons participated in the survey. Altogether, over 100 persons from 30 different faculties could be involved into the development of the guideline. Results: Based on the survey results, five areas of competencies were defined divided in general and specific competencies. These areas were operationalised into topics and educational objectives. The areas of specific competencies are: doctor-patient-relationship, teamwork, personality and professionalism, reasoning and decision making. Altogether, 19 themes and 131 educational objectives were enclosed into the guideline. Conclusion: The position paper presents a first interdisciplinary German speaking guideline for communicative and social competencies in medical education that hopefully will strengthen the importance of these competencies in medicine. In addition, it will hopefully be a worthwhile theoretical foundation for improving teaching, learning, and assessment in this field. [german] Zielsetzung: Ziel des vorliegenden Positionspapiers ist es, abgestützt auf einen interdisziplinären und fakultätsübergreifenden Konsens, Empfehlungen darzustellen, welche kommunikativen und sozialen Kompetenzen Medizinstudierende am Ende ihres Studiums besitzen sollten. In Anlehnung an die bestehenden angloamerikanischen Consensus Statements, die in Toronto und Kalamazoo erarbeitet wurden, wird die vorliegende deutschsprachige Empfehlung „Basler Consensus Statement“ genannt. Methodik: Die Entwicklung erfolgte in drei Schritten, einem zweitätigen Workshop in Basel und einer zweistufigen Delphi-Befragung. Ziel der Delphi-Befragungen war es, die Kompetenzbereiche und Ausbildungsziele, die in Basel erarbeitet worden waren, nach ihrer Wichtigkeit für das Medizinstudium zu beurteilen. Am Workshop nahmen 30 Personen teil, die auch die Adressaten der ersten Delphi-Befragung waren. In die zweite Delphi-Befragung wurden die Mitglieder der Gesellschaft für Medizinische Ausbildung (GMA) einbezogen, von denen 77 Personen an der Befragung teilnahmen. Insgesamt konnten damit über 100 Personen aus 30 Fakultäten im deutschsprachigen Raum in den Entwicklungsprozess involviert werden. Ergebnisse: Auf der Basis der Ergebnisse der ersten und zweiten Delphi-Runde ergaben sich fünf Kompetenzbereiche, die in allgemeine und spezifische Kompetenzen unterteilt wurden. Für beide wurden Themengebiete und Ausbildungsziele festgelegt. Die spezifischen Kompetenzen umfassen die Bereiche: Ärztin-Patientin-Beziehung, Teamarbeit, Persönlichkeit und Professionalität, Urteilsbildung und Entscheidungsfindung. Insgesamt wurden 19 Themengebiete und 131 Ausbildungsziele in die Empfehlung aufgenommen. Fazit: Mit dem Basler Consensus Statement liegt nun ein diskussionswürdiges deutschsprachiges Positionspapier vor, das die Wertigkeit kommunikativer und sozialer Kompetenzen als einen wichtigen curricularen Bestandteil stärken wird und das als Basis für die curriculare Entwicklung in diesem Bereich fungieren kann.
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 | 0.180 | 0.235 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.025 |
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".