Use of the Ontario Bronchoscopy Assessment Tool to Enhance Post Procedural Feedback for Pulmonary Fellows
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
RATIONALE For many pulmonary fellows, bronchoscopy is the most common procedure performed during fellowship. This vast number of bronchoscopies creates a unique opportunity for frequent assessment of skills, and continual feedback. Despite bronchoscopy being a skill paramount to pulmonary medicine, many fellowship programs lack a process for standardized assessment of skills over time. Additionally, a common concern within graduate medical education, is the desire for more frequent verbal feedback. The Ontario Bronchoscopy Assessment Tool (OBAT) has previously been validated to assess trainee competence with planning and performing bronchoscopy. We became interested in using the OBAT to objectively assess fellow progression in performing bronchoscopy, as well as enhance the satisfaction with feedback surrounding this procedure. METHODS From July 2019 through August 2020 attendings were asked to fill out the OBAT with the fellow after each fellow-performed bronchoscopy. Weekly reminders were sent via text messaging to all attendings within the division. Scores across the 19 categories in the OBAT were compared from the beginning and end of the trail period for two different fellowship classes (first and second years as of July 2019). Following the end of the trial period, surveys were sent to attendings and fellows assessing their satisfaction using the tool. RESULTS There was an average of 23.3 fellow performed bronchoscopies per month with an accompanying monthly OBAT completion rate of 29.6%. The junior fellowship class displayed a larger improvement in average scores. The three most significant improvements were appropriate administration of sedation, inspection in an orderly manner, and assessing for post procedural complications, with a difference of 3, 2.3, and 3 points (5-point scale) respectively. 88% of fellows felt the OBAT was a useful way to receive feedback and the same number stated they preferred the OBAT over traditional, impromptu feedback. 62% of fellows felt feedback happened more frequently because of the OBAT. 66% of attendings felt the tool was helpful way of giving feedback. Most fellows and attendings prefer to continue to use the OBAT in the future. CONCLUSIONS We found the OBAT most beneficial for prompting detailed feedback following a bronchoscopy. Nearly all fellows preferred to receive feedback using the OBAT compared to spontaneous feedback which, at times, was felt to be lacking in substance. We found monitoring individual progress difficult due to low OBAT completion rate. For future utilization, staff education and frequent reinforcement of the goals of the tool may help improve completion rates.
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 | 0,006 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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 ».