MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2088799658 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02154.x

Cabin Fever: an innovation in faculty development for rural preceptors

2005· article· en· W2088799658 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Heather Armson, Rod Crutcher, Doug Myhre

Notice bibliographique

RevueMedical Education · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Établissements canadiensSuncor Energy (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésContext (archaeology)SpecialtyAttendanceRecreationRural areaMedical educationPracticumMedicineFamily medicinePsychologyPolitical scienceGeography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Context and setting A new rural family medicine residency programme was established in Alberta, Canada in 2000. This group of 20 rural-based residents, in addition to the urban-based residents, are being trained in 21 rural and regional sites in Alberta over a 2-year period. One early challenge was that of faculty development (FD) for the 140 family medicine and specialty preceptors, most of whom were new to their roles as clinical teachers. Why the idea was necessary Traditional urban-based FD was neither congruent with the location and philosophy of the rural-based programme, nor appropriate, given the programme FD goals. The Cabin Fever retreat was established with the overarching goal of supporting the recruitment and retention efforts of the Alberta Rural Physician Action Plan as support from the main academic centres has been shown to stabilise manpower in underserviced areas. Each FD retreat has had 2 focused objectives: context-specific preparation of preceptors for their new roles in both teaching and evaluation of clinical skills, and networking among rural preceptors and their families. What was done The retreat was organised in a winter recreational setting. In a co-operative manner, the timing of other FD opportunities in the province were considered. This format was chosen as interruptions from the demands of practice were minimised, and opportunities for networking and social activities were readily available. The attendance of family members was explicitly encouraged – and funded – because of their crucial contribution to successful rural practice. The FD retreat is held each year on the same weekend in February. It takes place over 3 days, with mornings focused on educational activities and afternoons left unstructured. Participants and their families reconvene for an evening meal in which exemplars are honoured and the contribution of families to programme success acknowledged. The formal educational programme consists of 1 plenary speaker on the first day, followed by small group workshops. The workshop topics are based on a needs assessment coupled with feedback and suggestions from participants and residents from the previous year. The workshops are divided into 3 streams, with 1 for novice teachers, another for experienced teachers and a third for those interested in the theoretical foundations of education. Preceptors self-select into each stream and are allowed to cross over streams if they wish. Rural preceptors are actively sought to facilitate or co-facilitate workshops. Workshop facilitators are encouraged to use an interactive format with practice-enhancing strategies where appropriate (i.e. role play, videotape review and Internet access). Evaluation of results and impact Participants rate the retreat format, content and practice applicability very highly. There are numerous comments each year on the positive impact of actively including family members. Preceptors are asked to commit to specific teaching changes for each workshop they attend and the majority of participants do so. Next steps will include ensuring that each rural teaching site is represented at the retreat and that participants are supported in sharing the knowledge and skills gained with their site co-preceptors. A final step will involve the transfer of the retreat planning and delivery entirely to the rural preceptors.

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)0,038
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,090
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,205

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0380,018
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,010
Communication savante0,0090,004
Science ouverte0,0070,011
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

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 Opus0,064
Tête enseignante GPT0,502
Écart entre enseignants0,438 · 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'étudeQualitatif
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

Citations1
Publié2005
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMedical EducationMême sujetPrimary Care and Health OutcomesTravaux en français237 207