MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1543129827 · doi:10.25011/cim.v30i4.2819

58. Stories - Structured operative reporting in enteric surgerys

2007· article· en· W1543129827 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lawrence M. Gillman, Ashley Vergis, J. Park, Sam Minor, Matthew T. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Imaging in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDictationWilcoxon signed-rank testMedicineLikert scaleTest (biology)Intervention (counseling)Physical therapySubgroup analysisInternal medicinePsychologyNursingMann–Whitney U test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the introduction of a Standardized Operative Dictation Template improved the quality of resident dictation.
 General surgery residents (N = 20) from the University of Manitoba participated in the study. All residents were shown a standardized surgical procedure video and then asked to dictate an operative report. Residents were randomized with the intervention group receiving the Operative Dictation Template. Three months later, all residents were retested. Resident comfort level with dictation and satisfaction with the template was evaluated with a questionnaire. Dictations were evaluated by two blinded independent reviewers using the previously validated SAFE-OR assessment tool. This tool consists of a Structured Assessment Form (SAF) scored out of 45 and a Global Quality Ratings Scale (GQRS) out of 36. Pre and post scores were analyzed using a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test. 
 Subjective comfort level with dictation, as measured by responses on a five point Likert scale, improved significantly in the intervention group (p=0.02). In addition, 90% of residents in the intervention group subjectively reported their dictations improved because of the template. There was no overall difference in the quality of dictation in the intervention group pre and post intervention as measured by the SAF (28.6 vs. 30.0; p=0.36) and GQRS (21.7 vs. 21.8, p=0.96). However, junior resident subgroup analysis revealed statistically significant improvement in the intervention on both the SAF (23.2 vs. 28.3; p=0.02) and GQRS (17.1 vs. 20.4; p=0.02). Senior resident subgroup analysis showed no difference in the intervention group on either the SAF (36.8 vs. 32.4; p=0.07) and GQRS (28.5 vs. 23.9; p=0.07). 
 The Operative Dictation Template can result in a significant improvement in resident comfort level with dictation and has the potential to improve the quality of junior resident dictations. 
 Eichholz AC, Van Voorhis BJ, Sorosky JI, Smith BJ, Sood AK. Operative note dictation: should it be taught routinely in residency programs? Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004; 103:342-6.
 Menzin AW, Spitzer M. Teaching operative dictation. A survey of obstetrics/gynecology residency program directors. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2003; 48:850-2.
 Moore RA. The dictated operative note: important but is it being taught? Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2000; 190:639-40.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.011
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.233
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicDigital Imaging in MedicineFrench-language works237,207