46. Did the CME/CPD train leave with half the passengers? A needs assessment of Québec specialist associations' CPD units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This presentation reports on the results of a needs assessment conducted amongst the 34 Quebec specialist associations, which are accredited as CME/CPD providers by Quebec’s College of Physicians, in accordance with the Canadian Association of Continuing Medical Education’s criteria. In 2006, a mix of methods (survey, semi-structured interviews and program documentation review) were used to assess CPD units’ learning needs in the areas of CME and CPD, the extent to which they carried out a list of specific tasks associated to providers’ responsibilities, barriers encountered in meeting standards, and the kind of help needed to improve performance. Although CME/CPD fields have evolved considerably in the past 20 years, results indicate that few of the advances have made their way down to the associations. The majority still provides education in the form of traditional CME, where speakers talk about new developments in medicine. Whereas the systematic approach of CME is well integrated in most units, few go beyond perceptions in their needs assessments, use problem-based learning methods, enablers, reinforcement and outcome evaluations, or help specialists self-evaluate and reflect on their practice. These methods and approaches are believed to increase CME effectiveness. Most Canadian specialists get a large proportion of their CE from non academic medical organizations such as professional associations and learned societies. However, information available in the literature does not allow generalization of our observations to other organizations of this nature. Since non academic organizations are important CME/CPD providers, we propose that more attention be given on the way trainers are trained and innovations are shared in our CE system. What minimal knowledge and skills should be required of a CME/CPD professional today? Together with its affiliated associations and academic partners, the Federation of Medical Specialists of Quebec (FMSQ) has decided to tackle this important issue in the coming years. Olson CA, Tooman TR, Leist JC. Contents of a core library in continuing medical education: a delphi study. JCEHP 2005; 25:278-88. Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Haynes RB. Changing physician performance: a systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 1995; 274:700-5. Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet 2003; 362:1225-30.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".