58. Stories - Structured operative reporting in enteric surgerys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.070 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".