Development of a leadership skills workshop in paediatric advanced resuscitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Paediatric residency programs rarely prepare trainees to assume resuscitation team leadership roles despite the recognized need for these skills by specialty accreditation organizations. We conducted a needs-assessment survey of all residents in the McGill Pediatric Residency Program, which demonstrated that most residents had minimal or no experience at leading resuscitation events and felt unprepared to assume this role in the future. AIMS: We developed an educational intervention (workshop) and evaluated immediate and long term learning outcomes in order to determine whether residents could acquire and retain team leadership skills in pediatric advanced resuscitation. METHODS: Fifteen paediatric residents participated in a workshop that we developed to fulfill the learning needs highlighted with the needs assessment, as well as the Objectives of Training in Pediatrics from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. It consisted of a plenary session followed by 2 simulated resuscitation scenarios. Team performance was evaluated by checklist. Residents were evaluated again 6 months later without prior interactive lecture. Learning was also assessed by self-reported retrospective pre/post questionnaire. RESULTS: Checklist score (assigning roles, limitations of team, communication, overall team atmosphere) expressed as % correct: initial workshop scenario 1 vs. scenario 2 (63 vs. 82 p < 0.05); 6-month scenario with prior workshop exposure vs. control (74 vs. 50 p < 0.01); initial workshop scenario 2 vs. 6-month scenario control (82 vs. 50 p < 0.001). Retrospective pre/post survey (5 point Likert scale) revealed self-reported learning in knowledge of tasks, impact and components of communication, avoidance of fixation errors and overall leadership performance (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Residents acquired resuscitation team leadership skills following an educational intervention as shown by both observational checklist scores and self-reported survey. The six-month follow-up evaluation demonstrated skill retention beyond the initial intervention. A control group suggested that these results were due to completion of the first workshop.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".