Compatibility of Quebec Residency Program Characteristics with the Advanced Access Model: A Cross-Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3>Context</h3> The advanced access (AA) model is based on several core pillars, including balancing appointment supply and demand, regularly adjusting supply, optimizing appointment systems and collaboration practices. Exposure of family medicine resident to AA within university family medicine groups (U-FMGs) is a promising strategy to widen its dissemination. It is also essential to reflect on aspects of the model that could be adopted as well as those requiring adaptation to improve the residency experience. <h3>Objective</h3> Determine compatibility of U-FMG residency programs with AA pillars. Study Design and Analysis Cross-sectional survey of local residency program characteristics with respect to AA pillars. Program compatibility with 4 AA pillars was categorized inductively by a research team that included clinicians, AA experts, a residency program expert and 4 family medicine residents. <h3>Setting</h3> 46 U-FMGs in Quebec, Canada <h3>Population studied</h3> The chief resident and academic director of each U-FMG <h3>Instrument</h3> A de novo online survey questionnaire piloted with 3 former chief residents. The survey included 32 questions about family group practices, residency rotation programs, opportunities to collaborate with other professionals and training received on AA. The questionnaire and 2 reminders were sent by email to all respondents. <h3>Outcome measures</h3> Characteristics of residency programs were grouped by AA pillar. A three-level score (compatible, moderately compatible, or not very compatible with the principles of AA) was assigned to each group of characteristics of local U-FMG residency programs. <h3>Results</h3> 38 of 46 U-FMGs participated (82.6%). No U-FMG obtained a score of compatible for all 4 pillars considered. Balancing appointment supply and demand appeared to be adequate for >70% of U-FMGs. However, 60% of U-FMG appointment systems were not very compatible with the AA model, mostly because the proportion of the schedule reserved for urgent appointments was insufficient. Opportunities for collaboration were compatible with AA principles in 32% of programs. Almost 66% of programs offered training on AA. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Our study highlights the heterogeneity among residency programs with respect to their compatibility with AA. Our theoretical approach limits the objective assessment of the impact on timely access for patients. A second part of the project correlating AA indicators with residency program characteristics is ongoing.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».