The directors of resident support program: a program evaluation of a resident well-being and support innovation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Medical training can be a challenging time for residents both professionally and personally. Resident support programs must be able to address a range of potential experiences, be accessible and easy to navigate, and consider the unique context of residency. Rigorous evaluation of resident support programs is needed to determine whether these programs are meeting these goals. METHODS: The Directors of Resident Support (DRS) program, launched in January 2021 at the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary, is a near-peer support model consisting of three faculty physicians, trained in peer support, who receive contacts from residents needing support for any issue. DRS physicians provide empathetic listening, referral to existing resources, and peer support for residents. A multisource evaluation of the DRS program, including field notes, data collection forms, and surveys, was guided by the Donabedian framework. RESULTS: There were 62 total contacts in the 2-year evaluation period which required a median 2 h to address (range 5 min to more than 40 h). The most common topic for contact was to discuss feedback or evaluation (n = 10, 24.4%) and the most common response was listening and support (n = 29, 70.7%). Residents also contacted DRS to discuss experiences of racism, physical assault, sexual harassment, and mental health crises. Residents (n = 13) rated a median score of 74 out of possible 100 for usefulness (interquartile range [IQR] 1-100, with higher scores suggesting greater usefulness). Free text survey responses suggested that residents felt validated by contact with the program though some residents felt that additional follow-up would have been helpful. CONCLUSION: The DRS program has been well-utilized by residents for a variety of issues. Postgraduate Medical Education offices seeking to create resident support programs may anticipate that about 3% of residents may use a similar program per year and that the typical interaction would last 2 h, with a wide range. Feedback suggested that similar programs should have a formal process for follow-up with residents to ensure their concern was addressed and that resident supporters should have diverse lived experiences.
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 | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| 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 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».