Intervention for Intraoperative Teaching in Anesthesiology Using Weekly Keyword Program: Development and Usability Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Learning in the operating room (OR) for residents in anesthesiology is difficult but essential for successful resident education. Numerous approaches have been attempted in the past to varying degrees of success, with efficacy often judged afterward using surveys distributed to participants. The OR presents a particularly complex set of challenges for academic faculty due to the pressures required by concurrent patient care, production pressures, and a noisy environment. Often, educational reviews in ORs are personnel specific, and instruction may or may not take place in this setting, as it is left to the discretion of the parties without regular direction. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine if a structured intraoperative keyword training program could be used to implement a curriculum to improve teaching in the OR and to facilitate impactful discussion between residents and faculty. A structured curriculum was chosen to allow for the standardization of the educational material to be studied and reviewed by faculty and trainees. Given the reality that educational reviews in the OR tend to be personnel specific and are often focused on the clinical cases of the day, this initiative sought to increase both the time and efficiency of learning interactions between learners and teachers in the stressful environment of the OR. METHODS: The American Board of Anesthesiology keywords from the Open Anesthesia website were used to construct a weekly intraoperative didactic curriculum, which was distributed by email to all residents and faculty. A weekly worksheet from this curriculum included 5 keywords with associated questions for discussion. The residents and faculty were instructed to complete these questions on a weekly basis. After 2 years, an electronic survey was distributed to the residents to evaluate the efficacy of the keyword program. RESULTS: A total of 19 teaching descriptors were polled for participants prior to and following the use of the intraoperative keyword program to assess the efficacy of the structured curriculum. The survey results showed no improvement in intraoperative teaching based on respondent perception, despite a slight improvement in teaching time, though this was statistically insignificant. The respondents reported some favorable aspects of the program, including the use of a set curriculum, suggesting that greater structure may be beneficial to facilitate more effective intraoperative teaching in anesthesiology. CONCLUSIONS: Although learning is difficult in the OR for residents, the use of a formalized didactic curriculum, centered on daily keywords, does not appear to be a useful solution for residents and faculty. Further efforts are required to improve intraoperative teaching, which is well known to be a difficult endeavor for both teachers and trainees. A structured curriculum may be used to augment other educational modalities to improve the overall intraoperative teaching for anesthesia residents.
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 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 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) | 0,002 | 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 ».