Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Hospital pediatricians work diligently to perform a number of important functions including providing quality care for patients and families, teaching medical students and residents and facilitating communication with peers, other health care professionals and administrators. In an effort to ensure these functions are being performed at a high level and to enhance the ongoing development and performance of the individual physician, a comprehensive strategy is required to evaluate hospital pediatricians. The goal of the hospital pediatrician performance review is to provide a specific and effective strategy to evaluate pediatricians working in the hospital environment. The review is designed to be fair, confidential and well-balanced. The evaluation should benefit the individual hospital pediatrician in developing a greater awareness of professional strengths and weaknesses and help set goals for ongoing development and performance. The evaluation should also benefit those charged with the responsibility of reviewing the performance of hospital pediatricians. A comprehensive assessment tool was designed to incorporate input from most major groups associated with the hospital pediatrician to create a “360 degree” evaluation. These groups included the physician (self-assessment), other hospital pediatricians (peer assessment), nursing staff, pediatric residents, hospital pediatrician program coordinators, community-based pediatricians, and patients and their families. Questionnaires (7) were developed for each of the groups defined. These were distributed and returned between March and June, 2003. Results were collated by a research consultant and reviewed and summarized by a senior physician staff member. The senior staff member met privately with each physician to review the performance summary, discuss strengths and weaknesses identified by the review process and formulate methods and strategies to enhance physician performance. Following these meetings each pediatrician completed a survey addressing the perceived specificity, balance, fairness, value and limitations of the hospital pediatrician performance review. Physicians also offered suggestions on how to improve the performance review. The ten hospital pediatricians who participated generally felt the goals of a fair, confidential and well-balanced evaluation process were realized. The performance review assisted hospital pediatricians in developing a greater awareness of professional strengths and weaknesses and allowed each an opportunity to set goals for ongoing development and performance. It is hoped that this hospital pediatrician performance assessment tool can be further refined and shared with others physician groups who believe such a process may benefit their professional development and performance.
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 | 0,011 | 0,032 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,003 |
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 ».