Trainee Impact on Procedural Complications: An Analysis of 967 Consecutive Flexible Bronchoscopy Procedures in an Interventional Pulmonology Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increased complications have been demonstrated in patients undergoing some medical procedures performed by trainees. Flexible bronchoscopy is generally considered a safe procedure; however, complications can include pneumothorax, bleeding and even death. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the impact of trainees during interventional pulmonology procedures on procedure time, sedation use and complications. METHODS: A retrospective review of a quality improvement database from all consecutive medical procedures performed by an interventional pulmonologist (D.R.S.) at the University of Calgary, from July 1, 2007, to April 1, 2011. RESULTS: Of 1,100 consecutive procedures during the study period, 967 were flexible bronchoscopies. A trainee participated in 82.2% of the procedures. Complications occurred in 38 patients (3.9%). No death occurred. Significant differences were seen when a trainee participated in the procedure versus when no trainee participated for procedure length [50.81 vs. 32.49 min, difference 18.32 min (95% CI 16.04-20.60), p = 0.001], dose of midazolam used [6.34 vs. 5.73 mg, difference 0.61 mg (95% CI 0.15-1.08), p = 0.01], dose of propofol used [153.08 vs. 111.60 mg, difference 41.48 mg (95% CI 21.81-61.15), p = 0.001], as well as the number of complications [4.5 vs. 1.2%, difference 3.3%, p = 0.048]. CONCLUSIONS: In an academic interventional pulmonology practice utilizing the apprenticeship model for procedural education, trainee participation in procedures can increase procedure time and the amount of sedation required, and result in increased complications. Medical procedural training methods that do not involve practicing on patients warrant further investigation in order to reduce the burden of procedural learning for patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".