Evaluation of a Peer-Reviewed Career Development and Compensation Program for Physicians at an Academic Health Science Center
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The Department of Pediatrics at the Hospital for Sick Children, which is funded by an alternative payment plan, has implemented a novel career development and compensation program (CDCP). Job activity profiles were used to more clearly define job expectations, benchmarks guided career development, and peer review was used to assess performance. The objective of this study was to evaluate the departmental pediatricians' satisfaction with the CDCP. METHODS: Pediatricians, all of whom had undergone CDCP annual reviews, could participate if they had undergone the in-depth triennial CDCP review. Each received a 5-point Likert scale-based questionnaire that asked how well the CDCP had conformed to the principles identified by the department during the development of the CDCP. Anonymous, confidential responses were collated and used to guide focus groups that discussed areas of greatest concern and attempted to identify solutions. Focus groups were led by external facilitators who were experienced in qualitative research. They audiotaped the sessions, transcribed the comments, and analyzed the data with the assistance of a qualitative analysis application. RESULTS: Sixty of the eligible 88 pediatricians participated, and 74% of their responses were that the CDCP had addressed the original principles "somewhat," "to a great extent," or "extremely well." The remainder indicated that some of the principles were either "not addressed" or "only to a small extent" by the CDCP. Results from the 11 focus groups (46 participants) indicated that the CDCP was an improvement over the previous method of career development and determination of the rate of remuneration. Most were also still in agreement with the purpose and design principles. Although they did not want the CDCP to undergo a major redesign, they identified areas that need improvement. Short-, medium-, and long-term action plans to address these areas are under way. CONCLUSION: Pediatricians at the health science center of the Hospital for Sick Children remain supportive of the CDCP.
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 | 0,048 | 0,079 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 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 ».