Emergency medicine ultrasonography: national survey of family medicine-emergency medicine program directors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To survey program directors of family medicine-emergency medicine (CCFP[EM]) training programs regarding current and future emergency medicine ultrasonography (EMUS) training. DESIGN: A Web-based survey using a modified Dillman method. Two academic emergency physicians reviewed the validity and reliability of the survey. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Program directors of all 17 Canadian CCFP(EM) residency training programs in 2006. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics of EMUS training currently offered and program directors' perceptions of needs for future EMUS training. RESULTS: The survey, performed in 2006, had a response rate of 100% (17/17), although not all respondents answered all questions. At the time of the study, 82.4% of respondents' programs used EMUS. Although all program directors recommended that residents attend introductory EMUS courses, only 71.4% (10/14) of programs offered such courses; 60.0% (9/15) of those were mandatory. In one-third of the programs, more than 75% of the attending staff used EMUS. A total of 76.5% of program directors thought that introductory courses in EMUS should be mandatory; 62.5% (10/16) believed that residents were able to acquire sufficient experience to use EMUS independently to make practice decisions before completion of their residency; and 88.2% believed that EMUS should be a part of the scope of practice for emergency medicine physicians. Only 58.8% believed that there should be questions about EMUS on the CCFP(EM) Certification examination. Open responses indicated that funding, resources, and standardization were issues that needed to be addressed. CONCLUSION: Formal EMUS training for CCFP(EM) programs is being introduced in Canada. Quality assurance needs to be strengthened. Most program directors thought that an introductory course in EMUS should be mandatory. Fewer directors, however, believed EMUS should be on the CCFP(EM) Certification examination until further funding, resources, and standardization of EMUS programs were in place.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".