MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1436841182 · doi:10.1093/pch/9.9.625

The common postgraduate year 1: A paediatric perspective

2004· article· en· W1436841182 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Eric I. Benchimol

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDiversity and Career in Medicine
Établissements canadiensCanadian Pain Society
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFlexibility (engineering)Medical educationFamily medicinePerspective (graphical)MedicineAssociation (psychology)Residency trainingPsychologyManagement

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Over the past year, a working group of the Canadian Medical Forum (CMF) has discussed a change in residency training that, if implemented, would affect all of Canada's future paediatric residents. The ‘common PGY-1' (postgraduate year 1), has been approved as a working concept by national professional groups such as the Canadian Medical Association (1,2), the Canadian Association for Interns and Residents (3) and the Canadian Federation of Medical Students (4), as well as by numerous provincial organizations. The Residents Section of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) feels that, as the only national group representing paediatric residents, it should be involved in the planning stages of any reforms in paediatric training. The ‘common PGY-1' has no firm form yet because planning is still in its early phases. The CMF has proposed that a certain percentage of medical students would opt to enter this program if they are unsure of the area of medicine in which they wish to specialize. The possible changes to residency training have been proposed in response to a survey by the Canadian Association of Interns and Residents (3) in which medical students stated that they felt pressured to make career decisions too early in their training. The goal of this common year would be to improve flexibility in medical training. Following the ‘optional common PGY-1', residents would enter a residency in their area of interest (either through the Canadian Residency Matching System or through positions specifically reserved for those from the ‘common year'). Another proposal is that all medical students enter a common year before residency. The former ‘optional common PGY-1' was the version approved by the CMF for further examination in June 2004 (5). The latter ‘mandatory common PGY-1' was rejected by the Canadian Medical Association at their 2004 annual meeting. The exact structure, the number of medical students that would be involved, the funding and the provincial approval for such changes have yet to be finalized. Paediatric residency represents a unique training program during which most trainees are required to spend the majority of their time in the paediatric setting. Only a small number of residency programs currently offer any adult medical experience during the four years of training (five in Quebec). The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada has defined paediatric residency training goals, which do not consist of any time in adult specialties. In 2003, the Royal College proposed the alteration of paediatric residency to require five years of training to qualify to write the certification examination in general paediatrics. Although many groups opposed this extension (including the CPS's Board of Directors and Residents Section), many residents believe that in light of an increase in the volume and complexity of knowledge required to become a successful consultant, a minimum of four years of training is required. In a survey conducted by the Residents Section, many voiced opposition to the shortening of paediatric training to three years to accommodate a ‘common PGY-1' (unpublished data). The Residents Section would therefore oppose any move to shorten training in paediatric specialty rotations. We believe that the medical treatment of children presents unique challenges, disease processes and training goals and that few of these goals would be met during rotation through adult specialties. This position contrasts with that of the Canadian Federation of Medical Students which endorses the ‘common PGY-1' should it not lengthen total training time (4). In light of the position of the members of the Residents Section and the unique training of paediatricians, the CPS seeks to be involved in the planning of the ‘common PGY-1' to maintain the current high standards of paediatric training. The Residents Section does not oppose any move that would improve flexibility in medical training and trainee well-being, and as such, we are open to discussing future changes in the structure of residency. We understand the pressures faced by medical students entering the match following their rotating clerkship year. We are heartened by the fact that no respondents to the survey stated that a ‘common PGY-1' would have discouraged them from entering a paediatric training program. Children living in Canada cannot afford a policy of discouraging medical students from entering paediatrics. The CMF has ended their examination of the issue with approval for the concept of an ‘optional common PGY-1' at their meeting on June 2, 2004. The CMF has called for the formation of an independent implementation group chaired by the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges. We urge this implementation group to include the CPS in the planning of any change in residency training as a major stakeholder in the future of paediatric residency training. We look forward to further discussions with members of the implementation group and to presenting evidence-based plans to our members should changes be proposed at a national level.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Incitatifs · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,992
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,142

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,008
Communication savante0,0090,010
Science ouverte0,0020,009
Intégrité de la recherche0,0090,018
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0160,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,299
Écart entre enseignants0,281 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
DomaineIncitatifs
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2004
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child Health→Même sujetDiversity and Career in Medicine→Travaux en français237 207→