Canadian Family Medicine residents' clinical training in diabetes mellitus
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ProblemThe College of Family Physicians ofCanada (CFPC) has identified diabetes as one of the top five priority topics for assessment ofcompetence in residency training, and has established evaluation objectives to clearly describe the domain ofcompetence that should be tested for managing diabetes.Unfortunately, little is known as to whether Canadian Family Medicine Residency programs are providing adequate training to residents in managing diabetes. MethodsA multi-method selfreported survey approach (paper and electronic) was utilized for this study to determine the level ofdiabetes experience received by graduating family medicine residents in Canada.Eleven Family Medicine departments provided permission to survey graduating residents (5 in Westem Canada and 6 in Eastem Canada).All subjects were surveyed using the electronic questionnaire, and residents in Vy'estem Canada received an intensified survey approach using both electronic and paper methods. ResultsThe final response rate was 30.56% (n=136).Residents within the intensified survey approach had a significantly higher response rate (X2:30.108;1df;p<.001)thanresidents who only received the electronic survey method.Results demonstrated that residents did not receive adequate training in the areas of diabetes management cited within the CFPC evaluation objectives.Training was considered most adequate in diagnosing ofdiabetes, however results showed that 94% of respondents had little to no experience in diagnosing Type 1 diabetes.Training in diabetes medications noted that 7 4%;o ofrespondents had little to no experience in initiating insulin, and routines that were initiated were representative oftraditional approaches (sliding scales and BID routines).Residents noted that training in initiating oral anti-hyperglycemic agents was adequate in only 40% ofrespondents, with exposure occurring only within first line therapies.Finally, clinical experience in managing acute diabetes complications was low for hypoglycemia (68.7% of respondents), DKA (64.2o/o of respondents), and HHNS (88.0% of respondents). ConclusionsResidency programs need to improve diabetes training to ensure that residents ¡eceive the key features identified by the CFPC as essential for competent management ofdiabetes in clinical situations.Acknowledqements I would personally like to acknowledge the Manitoba Medical Service Foundation (MMSF) as a key contributor to this project.The MMSF has been a strong supporter of health-related research and education in Manitoba, and through their review process chose to embrace this project as an important educational initiative.Without their financial assistance, the completion of this project would not have been possible.I would also like to ack¡owledge the guidance and support that was provided by my thesis committee through the evolution of this research project.Projects such as this are signifìcant leaming processes, and valuable insight was imparted to me from my committee in key areas of the ¡esearch design, methodology, data collection and analysis, and ove¡all interpretation and writing up of the final results, I appreciated the constructive appraisal throughout the course of this project.My situation was unique to many students, as geographical limitations significantly reduced the ability to meet on a face to face basis with my committee, I appreciate the flexibility that was shown to continue communication and teaching tluough altemative means such as email and phone discussions.I would like to acknowledge and ofler a special
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 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
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 ».