Effect of Interventional Pulmonology Fellowships on Pulmonary Critical Care Fellows’ Core Bronchoscopy Competencies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Currently, there is significant variability in bronchoscopy training across pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) programs nationwide, including procedural volume and exposure to simulation training. Despite the increased number of interventional pulmonology (IP) fellowship programs in the United States, their direct educational impact on PCCM fellows’ bronchoscopy training is unknown. Objective To identify and quantify the differences in flexible bronchoscopy competency among PCCM fellows from institutes with IP fellowships compared with those without IP fellowships. Methods This multicenter, prospective cohort study included the assessment of PCCM fellows from two groups, using the Ontario Bronchoscopy Assessment Tool (OBAT): 1) PCCM fellowships with a coexistent IP fellowship program and 2) PCCM fellowships without an IP fellowship program. The primary outcome was the difference in mean score between the two groups; secondary outcomes included the mean OBAT score of first, second, and third-year (or above) fellows in the two groups and the percentage of fellows in the two groups who were capable of independently performing the procedure. Results There were five participating training sites: two with IP fellowships and three without IP fellowships. A total of 50 OBAT assessments were performed (25 in each group) by the supervising attending physician. The mean OBAT score was 3.58 ± 0.65 in the IP group compared with 4.33 ± 0.61 in the non-IP group (P < 0.001). The mean (standard deviation) OBAT scores of the first, second, and third-year (or above) fellows were 3.36 (0.5), 3.48 (0.4), and 4.53 (0.5) in the IP group and 3.75 (0.8), 4.25 (0.5), and 4.7 (0.3) in the non-IP group, respectively. The mean OBAT score was directly proportional to the number of procedures done by the fellows. Conclusion There was a statistically significant difference in the mean OBAT scores between the two groups; the mean OBAT score was higher in the non-IP fellowship group. Although a more comprehensive study is needed to fully account for the various factors that can impact bronchoscopy training, this study highlights a key difference in basic bronchoscopy training among PCCM trainees. The presence of IP fellowship is one of the many factors that can affect the basic bronchoscopy skills of PCCM fellows.
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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) | 0,000 | 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 ».