P287 The knowledge and skills needed to perform intestinal ultrasound – An international Delphi consensus survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Intestinal Ultrasound (IUS) is a non-invasive modality for monitoring disease activity in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). IUS training currently lacks well-defined standards and international consensus on IUS competency criteria. Hence, the aim of this study was to achieve international consensus on what competencies should be expected from a newly certified IUS practitioner. Methods A three-round iterative Delphi process was conducted among 54 IUS experts from across 17 countries. Round 1 was a brainstorming phase with an open-ended question to identify the knowledge and skills that the experts believed a newly certified IUS practitioner should have. The experts’ suggestions were summarised and organised into statements by a Steering Committee. Round 2 allowed the experts to provide comments and to rate the statements on a five-point Likert scale by level of agreement, i.e., how much they agreed or disagreed that a newly certified IUS practitioner should have a specific knowledge or skill. Statements were revised based on the comments and ratings from the experts. In round 3, the experts re-rated the revised statements. Statements achieving the pre-defined consensus-criterion (at least 70% agreement) were included in the final list of consensus statements. Results 858 items were suggested by the experts in first round. Based on the suggested items, 55 statements were summarised and organised into three categories; knowledge, technical skills and interpretation skills. After the second round, two statements were merged and one statement was excluded, leaving 53 revised statements. After the third and final Delphi round, a total of 41 statements were included in the final list of consensus statements. Conclusion We established an international consensus on the knowledge and skills that should be expected from a newly certified IUS practitioner. The inception of these consensus statements is the first step in the process of developing training standards. Educators can utilize these consensus statements to guide them in designing training programs and in evaluating the competencies of trainees before they engage in independent practice.
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 | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».