Complex care core curriculum for pediatric post-graduate trainees: Results of a North American needs assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are increasing numbers of children with chronic, complex conditions requiring comprehensive care, however post-graduate training in this field is limited. Lack of training may contribute to reticence in engaging with their care. Although children with medical complexity (CMC) are heterogeneous, their care needs are similar. We aimed to address a lack of explicit training via a standardized curriculum. As an initial step, a collaborative needs assessment of key content was developed. METHODS: An on-line survey with drafted learning objectives was sent to professionals skilled in complex care. Participants indicated if an objective should be obtained by the end of Junior residency (PGY2), Senior residency (PGY4), or not at all. RESULTS: Eighty-two Canadian and US professionals participated; 60.3% practiced in a University Health Centre and 60% cared for CMC and participated in pediatric postgraduate education. Over 80% felt that the medical home concept should be understood by the end of PGY2, and that trainees should develop a care plan by the end of PGY4. CONCLUSION: This needs assessment supported the learning objectives and provided information on the expected competency time line for knowledge and skill acquisition. Additional comments will be used to revise the objectives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".