Learning procedural skills in family medicine residency: comparison of rural and urban programs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether family medicine residents graduating from rural programs assess themselves as more experienced and competent in a range of procedural skills than graduates of urban programs do. DESIGN: Self-administered written survey. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Residents from 5 Ontario family medicine programs in 2000 and 2001; a total of 535 surveys were available for analysis (response rate of 78%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean self-assessed experience and competence scores for 53 procedures at residency entry, end of year 1, and graduation. RESULTS: Upon entry, there was no difference in mean procedural experience (2.89 vs 2.85, P = .54) or mean competence (2.34 vs 2.36, P = .88) scores between rural residents and their urban counterparts. There was a significant increase in procedural experience (P < .001) and competence (P < .001) scores during residency training. At graduation, mean experience (3.98 vs 3.70, P < .001) and competence (3.67 vs 3.39, P = .004) scores were significantly higher for rural residents than for their urban colleagues. A statistically larger proportion of residents graduating from rural programs assessed themselves as competent in 16 procedures. These included skills necessary for treating patients in emergency settings (establish intravenous lines for adults and infants, obtain arterial blood gas measurements, intubate adults and neonates, perform cautery for epistaxis, remove corneal foreign body, aspirate or inject knee and shoulder joints, and apply forearm or walking casts), for diagnostic procedures (endometrial biopsy and bone marrow aspiration), and for management of labour and delivery (vaginal delivery; vacuum extraction; and repair of first-, second-, and third-degree tears). CONCLUSION: Graduates of rural programs who have had a substantial component of training in communities of fewer than 10,000 people report greater self-assessed experience and competence in procedural skills than graduates of urban programs do. The difference likely reflects the unique aspects of rural training sites, including preceptors' competence in performing procedures.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".