A87 A SURVEY-BASED ASSESSMENT OF ENDOSCOPY CURRICULUM AND EDUCATION IN CANADIAN TRAINING PROGRAMS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Endoscopic training within Canada occurs in programs accredited by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC). Beyond national accreditation, there are no standardized endoscopic training curriculums and each program is responsible for ensuring its trainees achieve competency. There is debate in the literature regarding the minimum number of endoscopic procedures and the role of objective assessment tools in the assessment of trainee competence with no specific recommendations for these by the RCPSC. Aims The goal of our study was to characterize endoscopic training curriculums within Canadian training programs while determining the usage and perceived importance of procedure volume tracking and objective assessment tools. Methods Online surveys were sent to program directors (PD) and trainees within Adult Gastroenterology, Pediatric Gastroenterology, General Surgery and Colorectal Surgery programs within Canada. Surveys contained questions meant to characterize endoscopy training curriculums and perceived effectiveness of the curriculum while highlighting the factors important for feedback and competency assessment. Results Survey responses were obtained from 20 PDs and 83 trainees. Of all programs surveyed 53% (44/83) of trainees reported that they had a formal endoscopy curriculum compared with 75% (15/20) of PDs. PDs assessed endoscopic competence predominantly by EPAs (95%) and verbal feedback (65%) with minimal usage of objective tools (30%). Trainees reported fewer objective tool usage at 2.4% (2/83). When assessed on a 5-point Likert scale, both PDs and trainees felt that verbal feedback was the most important for assessment of competence (3.58 and 4.39 respectively). Seventy-seven percent of trainees report using a procedure log and when asked about procedure volume 37% of trainees expected to complete ampersand:003C250 colonoscopies by the end of their training. Eighty-three percent of PDs felt that all their trainees achieved endoscopic competency with only 50% of adult GI PDs reporting the same. Most PDs and trainees felt that national recommendations for objective tool usage (65% and 57% respectively) and minimum procedure volume (65% and 63% respectively) would be helpful to standardize endoscopic training. Additional results are reported in Figure 1. Conclusions Most training programs reported a standardized curriculum with a majority of trainees tracking their procedure volume, but a minority of programs incorporated objective tools. A significant portion of trainees expected to complete ampersand:003C250 colonoscopies by the end of their training and not all PDs felt that all of their trainees reach endoscopic competence. The majority of trainees and PDs felt national recommendations for procedure tracking and objective tools would be helpful, suggesting the need for more formalized endoscopic curriculums in Canada. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0,004 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».