Learn CPS curriculum: Satisfaction survey of final year paediatric residents who participated in a pilot initiative to improve uptake of CPS position statements and practice points

Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) position statements (PSs) or practice points (PPs) are a result of extensive literature review and expert discussions, providing valuable recommendations for paediatric patient care. There is no research to date evaluating reading and implementation of CPS PSs/PPs. We piloted a curriculum, named Learn CPS, at McMaster University from 2013 to 2016 to integrate focused learning of PSs/PPs among final year paediatric residents. A Learn CPS curriculum session was scheduled every 2 weeks. Participating residents read 12 to 15 PSs/PPs prior to each session. Each session consisted of a quiz with 8 to 10 multiple choice and 4 to 6 short answer questions developed by graduated McMaster paediatric residents. Quiz questions covered most but not all of the 12 to 15 PSs/PPs. Following the quiz, answers were reviewed with emphasis on concepts presented in particular PSs/PPs. Hereby, we take the opportunity to communicate the results of a survey, conducted using 5-point Likert scale, of paediatric residents who participated in this pilot initiative. The survey response rate was 63% (25/40). Prior to the Learn CPS curriculum, 59% of responding residents had read less than 100 CPS PSs/PPs (<25: 0, 25 to 50: 6, 50 to 100: 9). Seventy per cent of those residents identified ‘not enough time’ as the major obstacle, while 20% felt it was ‘not emphasized in the program’. Prior to the Learn CPS curriculum, 59% of the residents felt they received teaching about CPS PSs/PPs in residency. Of these, seven residents received it during bedside teaching (54%), while six received it during resident led teaching sessions (46%). However, only 27% felt they actually applied recommendations from CPS PSs/PPs in clinical practice, where applicable, ‘often’ or ‘almost always’. Twenty-eight per cent of the residents had ‘almost never’ or ‘once in a while’ applied these recommendations, while 45% said they applied it ‘sometimes’. The great majority of residents (73%) were ‘quite satisfied’ or ‘extremely satisfied’ with the quality of quizzes at the Learn CPS sessions. The rating of post-quiz review and discussion was similar, with 86% of respondents expressing their satisfaction. The majority of respondents (63%) felt that these sessions motivated them ‘quite a bit’ or ‘a great deal’ to read CPS PSs/PPs early in their exam preparation, while 10% thought that it provided ‘almost no’ or ‘a little bit’ of motivation. All of the responding residents felt that the Learn CPS curriculum was important for their Royal College exam preparation, with 86% rating it to be ‘quite important’ or ‘extremely important’. This is the first study in Canada to assess reading and learning of CPS PSs/PPs in a small group of final year paediatric residents and highlight the effectiveness of an organized curriculum to improve it. The Learn CPS curriculum at McMaster University was a pilot initiative valued by the participating residents. A modified version of the curriculum was subsequently included in the residency education for all residents at McMaster University. In the modified version, a senior resident leads each session with faculty facilitation. The number of PSs/PPs covered in each session has been reduced (6 to 8 versus 12 to 15). The focus is on reviewing only the ‘high-yield’ CPS PSs/PPs that were identified using a modified Delphi method incorporating expertise from senior residents and subspecialty staff. Each session consists of detailed presentations of 2 to 3 PSs/PPs, then brief presentations of remaining PSs/PPs, followed by review questions based on those statements. The Learn CPS curriculum initiative demonstrated the potential utility of incorporating teaching of CPS PSs/PPs in an organized manner as part of residency education. Further research is required to see whether such initiatives translate into improved uptake and implementation of PSs/PPs in independent practice. Funding: There was no funding for this study. Conflict of Interest: The authors do not have any conflict of interest in relation to the content presented in this manuscript.

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.