Comparing Operative Performance between Independent and Integrated Plastic Surgery Residents
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Anecdotally, faculty report that independent residents' operative skills differ from those of their integrated peers. This study compared operative competency between integrated (postgraduate years 4 to 6) and independent plastic surgery residents. METHODS: The authors compared independent (postgraduate years 1 to 3) and integrated (postgraduate years 4 to 6) plastic surgery residents at their institution using operative performance data from the Operative Entrustability Assessment, a validated five-point assessment tool that provides residents with real-time feedback about their operative performance, documenting performance at the point of care. Independent postgraduate year 1, 2, and 3 residents were categorized as postgraduate year 4, 5, and 6 residents, respectively, for comparison. The authors analyzed attending physician (evaluator) Operative Entrustability Assessment scores over time using the independent t test. RESULTS: From July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2018, Operative Entrustability Assessments were completed at one training program for residents in postgraduate years 4 to 6: 1886 (47.4 percent) by independent [n = 12 (37.5 percent)] and 2094 (52.6 percent) by integrated [n = 20 (62.5 percent)] residents. Evaluator scores were lower for independent track residents throughout the first two quarters of postgraduate year 4 (quarter 1 delta, -0.49 point, p < 0.001; quarter 2 delta, -0.36 point, p < 0.001). However, this difference was no longer statistically significant during the third and fourth quarters of postgraduate year 4 (p = 0.192 and p = 0.228, respectively). No difference was detectable at postgraduate year 5 (p = 0.095) or postgraduate year 6 (p = 0.877). CONCLUSIONS: Operative Entrustability Assessment data demonstrate that differences between independent and integrated plastic surgery residents regarding operative skills (0.49 of 5 points) and amount of time needed for independent residents to catch up (6 months) is minimal and resolves during the third quarter of independent postgraduate year 1. Programs can design curricula to facilitate independent residents' plastic surgery skill acquisition during their first two quarters.
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 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 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) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».