MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3065625104 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaa068.067

68 General Pediatric Skills – Are we Doing Enough During Training to Prepare Pediatricians for Practice?

2020· article· en· W3065625104 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Kendra Komsa, Quang Ngo, Mohamed Eltorki

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Établissements canadiensMcMaster Children's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineLikert scaleNeonatal resuscitationCardiopulmonary resuscitationAcute careFamily medicineEmergency medicineMedical emergencyResuscitationPsychologyHealth care

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Exposure to and training in acute care during pediatrics residency training varies. Furthermore, there is evidence that pediatric and neonatal resuscitative skills, like cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and management of acute care patients is often lacking.1,2 Several studies have shown that only 2.5 of every 1000 pediatric emergency department patients require significant resuscitative efforts3. Thus training for such an event is extremely important because mastering the skills involved are less likely to come with experience. Currently, it is unknown how comfortable community pediatricians feel managing acute care situations, nor if their comfort level changes depending on where they are trained. Objectives Our study aimed to determine if the training general pediatricians receive is sufficient to achieve a high comfort level in acute care that is sustained after 5 years in practice. This study explored pediatricians’ comfort levels with pediatric and neonatal acute care, as set out by the objectives of training in pediatrics from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Design/Methods An anonymous cross-sectional survey was piloted to a random sample of pediatricians in the province of Ontario, obtained through the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Demographic data regarding practice type and duration was collected as well as training data about courses done in Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) and Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP). Using a five-point Likert scale, pediatricians were asked to judge their comfort with different pediatric and neonatal acute care skills and clinical vignettes. Comfort level ranking ranged from 1 (very uncomfortable) to 5 (very comfortable). Skills included are listed in Figure 1. Baseline characteristics were described using frequency measures of proportions and medians and interquartile ranges when appropriate. For general pediatricians and specialists, we used the Mann-Whitney test to determine if there is a difference between the mean sum ranks of comfort level depending on whether the pediatrician was practicing for more or less than 5 years. Results One thousand surveys were mailed, of which 248 were completed (response rate = 24%). Among respondents, 142 (54%) practiced general pediatrics and 68 (32%) were specialists. The majority of respondents practiced in a city, large city or metropolis (84%). In total, 169 (81%) of all survey respondents and 37 (74%) of general pediatricians have been in practice for five years or more. For all respondents, 150 (64%) felt comfortable or very comfortable with neonatal resuscitation team lead. There was no difference in comfort level with leading a neonatal resuscitation team based on years of practice (less than 5 years versus greater than and equal to 5 years) (p=0.69). This result did not change when considering the general pediatrician only (p=0.14). Of all respondents, 113 (48%) felt comfortable or very comfortable with pediatric resuscitation team lead. There was a significant difference in comfort level with leading a pediatric resuscitation team based on years of practice (less than 5 years versus greater than and equal to five years) (p=0.03) with more comfort being seen over time. When analyzing only for general pediatricians, that difference became insignificant (p=0.07). No difference was found in reported comfort in most skills and length of time in practice. However, comfort level is significantly positively correlated with the number of times a skill was performed. Interestingly, a significantly negative correlation was found between comfort level as pediatric resuscitation team lead and number of years in practice (p=0.03). Conclusion The findings of this pilot survey suggest that ensuring competence in acute care in residency training is of utmost importance given that comfort with pediatric and neonatal resuscitation appears to remain static over time. The skills that pediatricians report most discomfort in are a target for continuing professional development or should be revised in the objectives of training of pediatrics.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,035
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,070

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,326
Écart entre enseignants0,298 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child Health→Même sujetEmergency and Acute Care Studies→Travaux en français237 207→