90 Effectiveness of “Pediatric Developmental Screening Days” on Resident Knowledge and Skills
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Canadian graduates of Pediatrics (GenPeds) residency programs report receiving inadequate training in child development in preparation for clinical practice. Developmental screening instruments allow early detection of childhood developmental disorders. Needs assessment indicated that clinical preceptors did not use screens, and residents’ primary personal learning objectives were red flags and referrals. We then developed a new curriculum to allow GenPeds residents to make experience-based decisions regarding screening in their future independent practice. (1) To determine whether this curriculum resulted in greater knowledge and skills (k+s) than controls (medical students and fourth year GenPeds residents). (2) To discover whether exam scores for k+s in screen scoring and management were greater after high volume practice Screening Days (SD) compared to scores immediately after the first year (R1) summer orientation teaching sessions (workshop). Forty-four R1, second (R2), and third (R3) year residents participated in the curriculum (2016–2018). Interventions included a SD in R1 and R3 Developmental Pediatrics (DevPeds) rotations following the interactive, case-based, hands-on workshop on scoring PEDS (Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status) + PEDS:DM (Developmental Milestones) and managing results of positive screens. Five different Short Answer Question exams were given on a variety of common parent concerns, at a total of 8 timepoints. One exam was repeated: immediately post-workshop and at R1, 2, and 3 end-year (during blocks 9 and 10 of 13-block year) in program OSCE. Four other exams were given at start (pre-) and end (post-) of DevPeds rotations. T-tests and Pearson’s chi-squared test were used to compare residents’ versus control group’s (n=14) mean total scores and percentage of passing. ANOVA and Pearson’s chi-squared test were used to compare R1, R2, and R3s’ mean total scores and percentage of passing. Results were significantly better than controls, at post-workshop, R2 R3 end-year, and R1 R3 post-rotation, for screen scoring and management of positive screen results which are moderately and highly predictive of developmental disorders; at R1 pre-rotation, scoring but not management was better; R1 end-year management was better, when most have had their SD; lack of difference at R3 pre-rotation suggests that k+s were not consolidated in absence of R2 practice. Screen scoring on the repeated exam was significantly better following SD (R2 R3 end-year) than post-workshop. Application of knowledge through screening experience effectively increased knowledge and skills in GenPeds residents. High volume practice Screening Days fostered greater results than hands-on workshop.
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 | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».