Trainee impact on advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy: An analysis of 607 consecutive procedures in an interventional pulmonary practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Complications during advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy are rare and include: pneumothorax, bleeding, mediastinitis and lymphadenitis. Increased complications have been demonstrated in patients undergoing routine bronchoscopy procedures performed by trainees. This study aimed to determine the impact of trainees during advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy on procedure time, sedation use and complications. METHODS: A retrospective review of a quality improvement database including consecutive pulmonary procedures performed by an interventional pulmonologist (D.R.S.) at the University of Calgary, from 1 July 2007 to 1 April 2011. RESULTS: Six hundred seven (55.2%) of the 1100 procedures involved an advanced diagnostic procedure defined as: endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) and/or peripheral EBUS. A trainee participated in 512 (84.3%) procedures. A complication occurred in 25 patients (4.1%), with a trend towards increased complication rates in the trainee group (4.7% vs 1.1%, difference 3.6%, P = 0.076). Significant differences were seen when a trainee participated versus when no trainee participated for procedure length (58.32 min vs 37.69 min, difference 20.63 min (95% confidence interval: 19.07-22.19), P = 0.001) and for the dose of propofol (178.3 mg vs 137.1 mg, difference 41.2 mg (95% confidence interval: 19.81-63.38), P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In an academic interventional pulmonology practice utilizing the apprenticeship model, trainee participation in advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy increased procedure time, increased the amount of sedation used and resulted in a trend to increased complications. Attempts to modify trainee procedural training to reduce the burden of procedural learning for patients are warranted.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".