MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2412388049

Preparation of IMGs for Residency Training in Canada.

2012· article· en· W2412388049 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Duncan, Megha Poddar

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIMGWorkforceDisadvantageMedical educationResidency trainingFamily medicineMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceContinuing educationComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

International medical graduates (IMGs) are becoming an increasing proportion of the medical workforce in Canada; the number of IMG-funded postgraduate training positions has more than tripled since 1999 (from 291 to 1065).1 IMGs seeking Canadian residency positions have diverse nationalities and provide a potential wealth of knowledge and experience to the Canadian medical system. Much has been said regarding the difficulties securing a Canadian residency position for IMGs, but there has been little expressed regarding assimilation in to the Canadian medical system for successful applicants. Because foreign medical schools are intrinsically different, the initial integration into the Canadian system for incoming IMG residents can be extremely challenging. For many foreign medical programs, the equivalent of the Canadian clerkship period takes place in the intern year, after they have qualified as physicians. As such, IMG physicians who are accepted to Canadian residency programs prior to completion of their intern year often have had little exposure to clinical responsibilities (i.e. dictations, progress notes, discharge summaries, etc.). Given this, incoming residents who come from not only a different medical program, but also a different medical system, may be at a significant disadvantage compared to their Canadian-trained colleagues. In Ontario, the assimilation of IMGs into the workforce is achieved through a three-week orientation program offered by the Centre for the Evaluation of Health Professionals Educated Abroad (CEHPEA) entitled The Orientation to Training and Practice in Canada Program (OTPC). This program focuses largely on appropriate and effective delivery of communication skills and provides an introduction to the framework of the Canadian medical system and culture.2 A recent survey, distributed to 40 first and second-year IMG residents in primary specialty programs at McMaster University, highlighted that only 17.9% of respondents felt that the CEHPEA program adequately prepared them for residency in a Canadian medical system. Furthermore, the survey revealed that over 90% of respondents felt that practical training with regard to resident duties would be extremely beneficial prior to starting their residency. Finally, when asked to rank the most challenging obstacle to starting a residency in Canada, the overwhelming response was “the carrying out the day-to-day responsibilities of a resident.” Sub-group analysis showed that the answers were similar for both Canadians who Studied Abroad (CSAs) and non-Canadian IMGs. As a comparison, Canadian Medical Graduates (CMGs) encompassing various specialties were also provided with the survey (n = 30). Compared to their IMG colleagues, 93% of CMGs felt well to extremely well prepared prior to commencement of their residency. Additionally, over 90% of respondents felt “comfortable” to “very comfortable” with the day-to-day responsibilities of Canadian residents (admission notes, dictations, etc.) Furthermore, only a third of CMG respondents felt that additional training in core resident duties would be beneficial, compared to over 90% of IMGs. Taken together, it is clear that CMGs entering their residency are much better prepared for the rigors of life as a resident in a Canadian medical system compared to their IMG counterparts. At McMaster University, we have identified a crucial gap between what is expected of residents and the comfort level of incoming IMG residents. Our research shows that IMG residents did not feel adequately prepared for life as a Canadian resident compared to their Canadian-trained colleagues. In Ontario, it would be prudent to re-examine the way IMGs are assimilated into the Canadian medical system, with a focus on bridging this gap.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,978
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,433

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0370,008

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 Opus0,118
Tête enseignante GPT0,438
Écart entre enseignants0,319 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations3
Publié2012
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMedMême sujetGlobal Health Workforce IssuesTravaux en français237 207