Generic medical and surgical endoscopy training lists can improve the number of opportunities for training in colonoscopy: Table 1
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction The Joint Advisory Group on GI endoscopy (JAG), advise that endoscopy units provide one training list per week per trainee. In late 2009 it was observed that insufficient opportunities for training were available in our unit to meet this criteria. This was thought to be as a result of trainees being attached to a single trainer, with subsequent cancellation of training lists due to on call commitments, annual leave and study leave. As a response, in early 2010 we introduced generic training lists where medical and surgical consultants would identify a defined number of endoscopy training lists they could offer each month. Trainees would then allocate themselves to lists according to their timetable, and as a consequence receive training and feedback from a variety of medical and surgical trainers. The aim of this study was to analyse the outcomes of this new training system. Methods An audit of the JETS eportfolio for the 5 colonoscopy trainees (3 medical and 2 surgical) within our unit, was undertaken to determine the number of training lists attended in the 4 th quarter of 2009 prior to introducing generic training lists, and to compare this to the 2 nd quarter of 2010 following commencement of the new system. Trainees were also asked to comment on their experience of the generic training lists. Results The results of the audit are summarised in table 1. There was an increase in the mean number of training lists from 7.8 per quarter to 13.6 per quarter per trainee as a result of the new system. This was associated with a mean increase in caecal intubation rate, number of procedures performed, and the number of Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) forms completed for each trainee. Four of the five trainees felt that the variety of trainers in the new system was an advantage over being taught by one trainer. Table 1 PTU-128 Mean number of training lists attended per trainee and performance data before and after introduction of generic training lists 4th quarter 2009 mean (95% CI) 2nd quarter 2010 mean (95% CI) Number of training lists attended 7.8 (0.98, 14.62) 13.6 (4.66, 22.54) Caecal intubation rate 68.4% (24.6, 112.3) 90.4% (77.62, 103.18) Number of colonoscopies performed 12 (0.45, 23.55) 39 (2.1, 75.9) Number of DOPS forms completed 2.4 (−0.84, 5.64) 7 (1.45, 12.55) Conclusion The introduction of generic medical and surgical endoscopy training lists can improve the number of training lists available to trainees in accordance with JAG guidance. This may lead to improvement in trainee caecal intubation rates, and an increase in the amount of formal feedback provided by trainers.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».