A206 STATE OF THE NATION: ADULT GASTROENTEROLOGY TRAINING IN CANADA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada provides objectives in procedural skills, medical knowledge, and CanMEDS roles required for certification in gastroenterology. The means by which this is achieved is at the discretion of the training programs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the Canadian adult gastroenterology training experience from a resident perspective in light of the upcoming transition to competency based medical education (CBME) and need for more standardization in training. A survey consisting of seven sections and 35 questions was distributed to Chief Residents (CR) at all 14 adult training programs. Continuous variables were analyzed with mean, median, and range. Eleven out of 14 CR responded to the survey. Median number of trainees per site was 6, with an average of 3 hospital sites. Majority of programs (8/11) were admitting, with a median (range) of 8 admitted patients (0–45). Median inpatient exposure was 36 weeks (10–104) and outpatient exposure 15 weeks (2–70). Mean number of call shifts per block was 7, including on average, one weekend. Residents were called into hospital on average 50% of the time, with a mean of 5 hours of sleep per call shift. Most CR felt they were unable to take a post-call day but all respondents felt supported by staff on call. Staff were available for the resident call rota at 5/11 programs. Mandatory rotations were highly variable, with the one constant across all programs being inpatient consults. All but one program provided core training in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes, while only 4 provided training in endoscopic manometry, despite it being a Royal College requirement. The majority of programs provided accommodation for residents writing the Internal Medicine Royal College Exam. Only 6/11 programs provided specific gastroenterology Royal College Exam preparation and 6/11 CR did not feel they received adequate career counselling. Despite this, nearly all residents (10/11) were satisfied with their program. The most common area of suggested improvement was increased access to outpatient endoscopy lists. Each gastroenterology training program in Canada is unique and provides a slightly different training experience. Mandatory rotations are heterogeneous and core procedures vary widely. Despite this, the vast majority of residents were satisfied with their program. The incoming transition to CBME provides an ideal juncture to re-evaluate and standardize aspects of gastroenterology training in Canada. None
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 | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
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 ».