564 RESIDENCY TRAINING IN NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION - COMPARATIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF UROLOGY AND OB-GYN RESIDENTS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyPediatrics: Congenital Anomalies - Lower Urinary Tract & Genitalia1 Apr 2011564 RESIDENCY TRAINING IN NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION - COMPARATIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF UROLOGY AND OB-GYN RESIDENTS Brian Le, Dae Kim, Vidit Sharma, Max Maizels, Jennie Mickelson, and Dana Gossett Brian LeBrian Le Chicago, IL More articles by this author , Dae KimDae Kim Chicago, IL More articles by this author , Vidit SharmaVidit Sharma Chicago, IL More articles by this author , Max MaizelsMax Maizels Chicago, IL More articles by this author , Jennie MickelsonJennie Mickelson Vancouver, Canada More articles by this author , and Dana GossettDana Gossett Chicago, IL More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.1289AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES In practice, primary care physicians are the routine providers of neonatal circumcision, yet urologists commonly manage the complications. We previously identified a need for improved formalized training in the contraindications to, evaluation and performance of neonatal circumcisions among ob-gyn residents. Here we use the same tools to conduct a needs assessment for urology residents in neonatal circumcision. METHODS An on-line survey of ob-gyn and urology residents in Chicago was conducted from Nov 2008 to Nov 2009. Using images of uncircumcised penises, residents were asked to identify which patients were candidates for routine neonatal circumcision. Residents then rated their own comfort and formal education in circumcisions. Data was analyzed using t-tests to compare the 2 groups. RESULTS 75% of ob-gyn and 65% of urology residents responded to the survey. The majority (63%) of ob-gyn residents planned to perform neonatal circumcisions once in practice, while only 27% of urology residents planned to do so. Both groups of residents described having little formal training in neonatal circumcision; with “no formal training” described by 44% of ob-gyn residents and 45% of urology residents, and a “casual briefing” by 52% and 45%, respectively. Ob-gyn residents felt significantly more comfortable than urology residents in performing neonatal circumcisions (mean of 5.9 vs. 4.4, p=0.003 - range 1 (very uncomfortable) to 7 (very comfortable)), though urology residents increased in comfort-level as PGY increased. Ob-gyn residents felt less comfortable than urology residents (mean 3.9 vs. 5.1 on scale of 7, p = 0.04) evaluating if the penis of a newborn may undergo circumcision safely. Urology residents performed better than ob-gyn residents at identifying contraindications to routine circumcision in our 10 scenarios (mean 63% vs. 43% p = 0.001). Both felt that an online-module was a good alternative to practical experience. CONCLUSIONS This needs assessment outlines that the majority of ob-gyn and urology residents have little formalized training in the contraindications and performance of neonatal circumcision. While ob-gyn residents are comfortable performing routine neonatal circumcisions, they feel significantly less comfortable evaluating the newborn penis. By contrast, urology residents are more confident with their evaluation and are better at identifying contraindications, but are less comfortable performing the procedure. This needs assessment highlights the need for further curriculum development and formalized training. © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 185Issue 4SApril 2011Page: e227-e228 Peer Review Report Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Brian Le Chicago, IL More articles by this author Dae Kim Chicago, IL More articles by this author Vidit Sharma Chicago, IL More articles by this author Max Maizels Chicago, IL More articles by this author Jennie Mickelson Vancouver, Canada More articles by this author Dana Gossett Chicago, IL More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0,007 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,031 | 0,004 |
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 ».