Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To the Editor: We were delighted to read about the success of the American Choosing Wisely campaign.1 Choosing Wisely Canada was launched on April 2, 2014 and similarly targets physicians and patients. As medicine recognizes the importance of resource stewardship in practice, there has been a congruent demand for the topic to be explicitly and implicitly included in medical curricula.2–4 Teaching students stewardship from the beginning of their education primes their medical knowledge and clinical thinking to ensure they are equipped to resist learning current wasteful medical practices. Most medical curricula do not celebrate restraint.4 Instead, medical education rewards thoroughness, curiosity, and searching for “zebras.” When students are asked to work up a patient, credit is awarded for naming tests of tangential clinical benefit. Associated costs and harms—such as increased anxiety, longer wait times, and unnecessary complications—are rarely discussed. Students learn to value overuse, the very problem stewardship aims to reduce. The underlying intention is logical—developing broad, critical thinking skills is vital for migrating students from book to bedside. Students must learn to develop differential diagnoses and investigate beyond typical presentations. We posit that teaching stewardship principles early contextualizes these lessons by bounding clinical searches with evidence-based knowledge. This thinking underlies Choosing Wisely Canada’s targeting of medical education. At the University of Toronto, stewardship content was increased by making small, but significant changes to existing cur ricula. We analyzed the undergraduate curricula, cataloged our experiences, and determined where stewardship naturally fit in existing education. We developed a spiral curriculum with distinct stew ardship learning objectives for each medical year. We then collaborated with administrators and mapped stewardship lessons where relevant. In the first year, stewardship is integrated in various lectures and seminars. Second-year lecturers are e-mailed relevant Choosing Wisely recommendations. Clerkship students attend stewardship seminars and learn value-based decision making in reframed internal medicine lessons. Similar to Wolfson and colleagues’ findings, the message of stewardship has strongly resonated with our faculty and students. The majority of lecturers have responded positively to our requests. Most importantly, student peers have begun to question low-value clinical decisions and weigh the risks and benefits of previously unquestioned interventions. Conversations have shifted from “What tests should we order?” to “What do we need to know?” To become a norm in medical practice, resource stewardship must be taught early in education. Updating curricula does not necessitate extra hours, and we hope our experiences can inspire similar curricula elsewhere. Marisa Leon-Carlyle MD candidate, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, and medical student researcher, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; [email protected] Raman Srivastava MD candidate, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, and medical student researcher, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Wendy Levinson, MD Chair, Choosing Wisely Canada and Choosing Wisely International, professor, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, and scientist, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
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 | 0,009 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,038 |
| 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».