Reshaping Orthopaedic Resident Education in Systems-Based Practice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Despite advances in understanding the "systems-based practice" competency in resident education, this topic has remained difficult to teach, assess, and document. The goal of this study was to perform a needs assessment and an analysis of the current state of systems-based practice education in orthopaedic residency programs across the U.S. and within our own institution. METHODS: A sample of orthopaedic educators and residents from across the U.S. who were attending the 2010 American Orthopaedic Association (AOA) Effective Orthopaedic Educator Course, AOA Resident Leadership Forum, and AOA Council of Residency Directors meeting were surveyed to determine (1) which aspects of systems-based practice, if any, were being taught; (2) how systems-based practice is being taught; and (3) how residency programs are assessing systems-based practice. In addition, an in-depth case study of these issues was performed by means of seven semi-structured focus group sessions with diverse stakeholders who participated in the care of musculoskeletal patients at the authors' institution. A quantitative approach was used to analyze the survey data. The focus group data were analyzed with procedures associated with grounded theory, relying on a constant comparative method to develop salient themes arising from the discussion. RESULTS: "Clinical observation" (33%) and "didactic case-based learning" (23%) were reported by the survey respondents as the most commonly used teaching methods, but specific topics were taught inconsistently. Competency assessment was reported to occur infrequently, and 36% of respondents reported that systems-based practice areas were not being assessed by any methods. The focus group discussions emphasized the need for standardized experiential learning that was closely linked to the patient's perspective. Orthopaedic faculty members were uncomfortable with their knowledge of this competency and their ability to teach and assess it. CONCLUSIONS: Teaching the systems-based practice competency occurs inconsistently, and formal assessment occurs infrequently. In addition to formal teaching, learning systems-based practice will be best achieved experientially and from the patient's perspective.
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 | 0,015 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».