PREPARING FOR CBME: HOW OFTEN ARE FACULTY OBSERVING RESIDENTS?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract BACKGROUND Transitioning to competency-based medical education (CBME) necessitates change in resident assessment. A greater frequency of resident observation will be required to adequately assess whether entrustable professional activities have been achieved. OBJECTIVES Characterize faculty and resident experiences of direct observation in a single Canadian Paediatric Residency program, pre-CBME implementation. Describe faculty and residents’ perceived barriers and incentives to participating in direct observation. DESIGN/METHODS Surveys were sent to faculty and residents asking for demographic information, the frequency of resident observation during an average 4-week rotation in several domains (taking a history, performing a physical examination, delivering a plan,...), perceived ideal frequency of observation, and factors influencing observation frequency. Descriptive data was analyzed. Institutional research ethics board approval was received. RESULTS The response rate was 54% (34/68 faculty and 16/25 residents). When asked the MAXIMUM frequency faculty observed a resident take a history, perform a physical examination, or deliver a plan, the median FACULTY reply was 1, 2, and 3, for outpatient settings and 0, 1, and 2, for inpatient settings, respectively. The median RESIDENT reply was 2, 4, and 10 for outpatient settings and 1, 2, and 20 for inpatient settings, respectively. When asked the MINIMUM frequency for each domain, the median FACULTY AND RESIDENT reply was 0, except for delivering a plan in the inpatient setting (median RESIDENT reply was 2). FACULTY and RESIDENT median replies for how frequently residents should ideally be observed for each domain were the same, 3–4, 3–4, and 5–6 times. 4% of faculty reported regularly scheduling observations, and 77% of residents regularly ask to be observed. The most common responses to barriers to observation were too many patients to see and that both faculty and residents were seeing patients at the same time. Most faculty and resident responders felt that observation frequency could be improved if they were scheduled at the start of the rotation, if faculty were provided a better tool for assessment, and if residents asked to be observed. CONCLUSION This study provides baseline data on how infrequent faculty observation of residents is occurring and at a frequency lower than what faculty and residents feel is necessary. The time needed for observation is felt to compete with clinical service demands, but better scheduling strategies and assessment tools may help increase the frequency of resident observation.
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 | 0,007 | 0,050 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».