Advanced airway management teaching in otolaryngology residency programs in Canada: A survey of residents.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We conducted a study to assess residents' levels of comfort with advanced airway management in Canadian otolaryngology residency programs. In October 2008, an electronic questionnaire was sent to all otolaryngology residents in Canada. Responses were voluntary and anonymous. The response rate was 64.8% (94 of 145 residents). Residents were asked about the amount of teaching they received and the amount they would like to receive each year in four areas: emergency surgical airway, pediatric airway, airway trauma, and management of complications during laryngoscopy/bronchoscopy. They were also asked how comfortable they were with their current level of knowledge in these areas. Overall, residents were not comfortable with difficult airway situations, scoring a mean of 3.08 on a 5-point Likert scale. Residents were most comfortable with the emergency airway and least comfortable with the pediatric airway. Overall, residents indicated that they had not received adequate teaching on advanced airway management, and they consistently desired more. With respect to the type of instruction, most residents requested more teaching via simulations, mannequins, and cadaver or animal models. Linear regression models revealed a positive relationship between their overall comfort with airway management and the number of airway teaching hours they received. Their consensus was that formal airway training should occur during postgraduate year (PGY) 2, with refresher courses offered every 2 years. This is the first wide-scale assessment of the status of airway teaching in otolaryngology residency programs in Canada. Overall, our findings suggest that otolaryngology residents in these programs are not comfortable with advanced airway management early in their training and feel they would benefit from a significant increase in airway teaching time. Comfort levels improved with increasing levels of training such that PGY5 residents indicated they were indeed comfortable with advanced airway management.
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 | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 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 ».