Fellow or foe: the impact of fellowship training programs on the education of Canadian urology residents
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: Throughout North America, increasing emphasis is being placed on surgical fellowships. Surgical educators and trainees have raised concerns that the escalating focus on fellowships may threaten the educational mission of more novice trainees. Our objective was to collect opinions from multiple perspectives (faculty, fellows and residents) regarding fellowship structure, fellow selection and the impact of clinical fellowships on urology resident training. METHODS: We anonymously surveyed 52 members of a major academic urology training program (University of Toronto) with established fellowship training programs for their opinions regarding fellowship structure, fellow selection, and the impact on resident training and education. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 88%. We identified significant differences of opinion among faculty, fellows and residents regarding fellowship structure, fellow selection and the impact on resident education. Specifically, faculty and fellows supported the addition of more fellows, felt that certain complex cases should be designated as "fellow cases" and that residents' research opportunities were not restricted. Residents felt that fellows "steal" operative cases, that performing operations with the fellow is not equivalent to performing operations with faculty alone and that fellowship candidates should perform an operation with division faculty as part of the application process. There was agreement that fellowship programs add value to residents' overall education, that fellows should participate in the call schedule and that fellows' role in the operating room needs to be better defined with respect to case volume and selection. Proficiency in technical skills, clinical knowledge, teaching and teamwork were cited as the most attractive characteristics of an effective clinical fellow. CONCLUSION: Residency and fellowship program directors must clearly define the role of the fellow and outline the limits of surgical practice, establish clear and consistent guidelines outlining responsibilities (operative, clinical and on-call), and open lines of communication to ensure that all opinions are recognized and addressed. Finally, they must select fellows with proficient technical skills, clinical knowledge, teaching ability and work ethic to ensure that they focus on "specialized" training.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».