Feasibility of a national Web‐based ultrasound learning portfolio for OB/Gyn residents: the KOALA program
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: To establish the feasibility of a national ultrasound learning portfolio in resident education in OB/Gyn in order to create a needs assessment for educational programming, ensure students are meeting educational objectives and promote self‐directed learning. Methods: The Internet‐based KOALA learning portfolio was introduced into 15 of 16 Canadian medical schools in 1997 to track resident learning encounters in OB/Gyn ultrasound. Data entered over 3‐year period analyzed using SPSS 10.0 to identify: (1) categories of ultrasound cases entered; (2) critical incidents of learning; (3) domain and stimulus of questions posed; and (4) educational resources used for learning. Results: Between 1 July 1997 and 30 June 2000, 3368 ultrasound encounters were voluntarily recorded by 50 residents at 11 university‐affiliated residency training programs. Twelve residents (25%) were categorized as high‐volume, having entered = 100 cases. Learning encounters were recorded according to the following themes: routine second trimester dating scans; diagnostic procedures; amniocentesis, CVS, cordocentesis; assessment of fetal well‐being; targeted anomaly screen; routine gynecological exam. Critical incidents of learning were identified in 25% of ultrasound cases (837/3368). Overall, the majority of questions asked by residents following their ultrasound learning encounter were of a cognitive nature (53.3%), and were significantly associated with identification of a critical incidence of learning (P < 0.001). Overall, medline was the educational resource most likely to be used case‐based learning when critical incidents were identified (P < 0.001). Questions of high volume users were most often stimulated by reflections and self‐assessment (81.5%) when compared to low‐volume users (61.3%). Textbooks were the educational resource most often used by high‐volume users (73.9%) to answer questions concerning their educational encounters. High‐volume users were more likely to report a change in their practice as a result of learning acquired through the use of KOALA systems (P < 0.001). Barriers identified during implementation included lack of computer Internet access in the clinical environment, suboptimal faculty development initiatives, and failure to integrate the learning portfolio as a component of the resident evaluation process. Conclusions: (1) Implementation of a Web‐based learning portfolio is feasible, allowing collection of data from geographically dispersed areas and programs; (2) voluntary use of the KOALA system was acceptable when the system was made available to OB/Gyn residents; and (3) use of Internet‐based learning portfolio such as KOALA presents a unique opportunity for ultrasound training programs and special society such as ISUOG to assess the educational needs of training physician learners.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».