Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: The Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires that sponsoring institutions “assure” that the residents' curriculum provides a regular review of the ethical, socioeconomic, medical/legal, and cost-containment issues that affect graduate medical education (GME) and medical practice. Our purpose was to develop a standardized core curriculum for non-interpretive radiology skills that would fulfill the ACGME requirements and that could be easily implemented by all radiology residency program directors. Description: Jointly sponsored by the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) and the American College of Radiology (ACR), an ACR/APDR Working Group developed a curriculum for teaching radiology residents essential non-interpretive skills: job search and contracting issues, business issues in radiology, critical thinking skills, ethics, ACR standards, accreditation programs and appropriateness criteria, service orientation/interpersonal skills, and medical organizational politics. For each of these topics, a videotaped 40-minute presentation by an expert radiologist is presented to a live audience of residents in diagnostic radiology, followed by a 20-minute question-and-answer session. Each videotape is distributed by the ACR, at no cost, to all radiology residency program directors. Taping is done at a professional studio in Bethesda, Maryland. Each curriculum module consists of a videotape with learning objectives, paper copy of the presentation slides, pre- and post-tests, and a program evaluation form. Each program director is asked to have a moderator present the videotape to his or her residents and return the testing and evaluation materials to the ACR. In addition to the videotapes, a series of papers on each topic will be prepared by the presenting radiologists and published in the American Journal of Roentgenology through collaboration and support from the journal's editor-in-chief and the American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS). In response to the ACGME requirement, leaders of the American Board of Radiology (ABR) have added questions on non-clinical skills to the board examination. Consequently, this initiative is of great importance to residents. Discussion: The first videotape, on job search and contracting issues, was released at the end of August 1999, and initial evaluations have been received by the ACR. Residents' mean ratings of the eight Likert-type scale evaluation items ranged from 4.02 to 4.74 (with 5 representing the most positive response). The numbers of responses per item ranged from 169 to 177. The mean rating for overall opinion of the program was 4.4, and 141 respondents thought the module was a useful learning tool (143 respondents answered this yes/no item). The second module, on business aspects of radiology, was released in early November 1999; the third, on ACR standards, accreditation programs, and appropriateness criteria, was released in early December. Subsequent modules are scheduled to be released in February, March, April, and August of 2000. The first article scheduled for the American Journal of Roentgenology—on job search and contracting issues—appeared in December 1999. We feel that this program already shows signs of success as a result of collaboration among program directors, the ACR, the ARRS, and the ABR, and the program fulfills a challenging ACGME requirement that other specialty programs and institutions are struggling with. The design and implementation of this program can serve as a model for other specialty programs.
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 | 0,000 | 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 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 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 ».