MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2024139603 · doi:10.1097/00001888-200105000-00110

Education in Quality of Care in an Internal Medicine Residency Program

2001· article· en· W2024139603 sur OpenAlexaff
Donald Farquhar, Kathryn Myers, Derek Benjamin

Notice bibliographique

RevueAcademic Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueInnovations in Medical Education
Établissements canadiensKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésQuality assuranceQuality (philosophy)CurriculumQuality managementMedical educationMedicineHealth careSession (web analytics)PsychologyFamily medicineComputer scienceOperations managementManagement system

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Objective: Because resident physicians usually work at the “front lines” of care, they are ideally situated to become active in quality assurance and improvement activities in their institutions. We developed and pilot tested a curriculum designed to allow residents in our internal medicine residency program to learn and apply key concepts in the assessment and improvement of the quality of the care that they deliver at our institution. Description: We launched our program in 1999 with an interactive half-day seminar in which we presented an overview of the core curricular content. Terms such as quality of care, quality control, quality assurance, and quality improvement were defined. Concepts such as the technical and interpersonal dimensions of care, small-area variation in care, and the structure-process-outcome paradigm of health care quality were introduced. Tools used in the measurement and enhancement of quality were illustrated through case discussion and review of selected abstracts from the literature on quality of care. These included mortality and morbidity review, peer review, examination of critical incidents, medical audit, and methods in total quality management. The introductory seminar was followed by a series of monthly noon-hour sessions devoted to group review of selected episodes of care in which suboptimal quality had been identified. These sessions were organized by a resident peer leader, who presented the case scenarios in anonymous fashion and led the resident group through an examination of the processes and outcomes of the care delivered, and a discussion of how care might have been improved. At each session, selected aspects of the curricular content, introduced at the initial half-day seminar, were reviewed in the context of the case discussions. The residents were thus able to use these discussions as an opportunity to identify, in a constructive and nonthreatening fashion, both system-embedded problems and the gaps in knowledge, skills, or attitudes of the caregivers that might have contributed to suboptimal quality. The residents' knowledge of concepts in quality of care was demonstrated, using a pre-test (administered at the outset of the introductory seminar) and a post-test (administered at the conclusion of the last noon-hour session of the year), to have improved over the course of the year. Discussion: The residents responded favorably to the introduction of this seminar series into their curriculum. The case-discussion format allowed them to learn and apply concepts that previously they might have perceived as dry, mundane, disconnected from their everyday work, or even threatening. The residents also found that their intimate knowledge of hospital-based processes of care gave them insight into problems that were attributable to system, rather than individual, performance. Identification of such system problems through group discussion also served to stimulate their interest in seeking system-based solutions. Key to the success of this series were the involvement of a resident peer-leader from conceptual stage through implementation and evaluation, and the support of faculty members with interest and training in quality improvement methods.

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)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,039

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,057
Tête enseignante GPT0,508
Écart entre enseignants0,452 · 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.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
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

Citations2
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAcademic MedicineMême sujetInnovations in Medical EducationTravaux en français237 207