The Trauma Evaluation and Management (TEAM) teaching module: its role for senior medical students in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to report on the role of the Trauma Evaluation and Management (TEAM) module devised by the American College of Surgeons in the trauma education of senior medical students. METHODS: Twenty-nine medical students who completed their surgical clerkship at the University of Toronto were randomly divided into 2 groups: a control and a TEAM group. All students completed a 20-item multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) pre-test. The TEAM group(15 students) took a post-test after completing the TEAM program and the control group (14 students) took the same "post-test" without completing the TEAM program. Students in the control groupdid complete the TEAM program after taking the post-test, allowing all 29 students to complete a post-module evaluation questionnaire. Paired t-tests were used for within group comparisons and unpaired t-tests for between group comparisons. The results of the evaluation questionnaire were analyzed according to the percentage of response in each of 5 categories of 1 - strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, as well as according to the median, range and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The students had similar mean (+/- standard deviation) scores on the MCQ pre-test (TEAM 46.3 [5.5], control 47.5 [9.9]), but the TEAM group showed a significant (p < 0. 05) improvement in their scores after they completed the TEAM program (TEAM 80.7 [11.5], control 44.6 [6.3]). Eight of the 15 students in the TEAM group reached the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) pass mark of 80%, whereas none in the control group achieved this mark. With respect to the evaluation questionnaire, a score of 4 or greater was assigned by 100% of the students when asked if the objectives were met, 100% when asked if trauma knowledge was improved, 62% when asked whether clinical trauma skills were improved, 100% for overall satisfaction and 100% in recommending that the module be made mandatory in the undergraduate curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the teaching effectiveness of the TEAM module. It also was very well accepted by the senior medical students who unanimously indicated that this module should be mandatory in the undergraduate medical curriculum.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".