MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027780115 · doi:10.1097/pec.0b013e3181e5841b

A Simulation-Based Acute Care Curriculum for Pediatric Emergency Medicine Fellowship Training Programs

2010· article· en· W2027780115 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Emergency Care · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumDebriefingMedicineSubspecialtyLikert scalePediatric emergency medicineMedical educationDelphi methodAcute careNursingEmergency departmentFamily medicineHealth carePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Currently, many pediatric hospitals are using simulation technology to teach trainees the skills required to effectively succeed in managing critically ill patients. Unfortunately, no curricula integrating the use of simulation have been described for pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellowship programs. Our objective was to outline our experience with the development, integration, and evaluation of a simulation-based, acute care curriculum into our current PEM fellowship training program. METHODS: Using the American Board of Pediatrics and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada learning objectives for PEM as a guide, 12 modules composed of 43 scenarios were developed to address the skill sets required for PEM fellows. Six modules were identified as "core," allocated for completion in year 1 of fellowship, whereas the remaining modules were "subspecialty," designed for completion in year 2 of training. A 12-question survey (5-point Likert scale) was used to evaluate trainee satisfaction with regard to 4 domains: level of realism, utility of debriefing, quality of instruction, and overall satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 66 surveys were collected between March and July 2007. Twenty-five surveys were completed by PEM fellows. Trainees responded favorably for all 4 domains, reporting that the new simulation curriculum provided realistic scenarios with high-quality debriefing, instruction, and an overall excellent learning experience. CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully integrated a simulation-based acute care curriculum into our PEM fellowship program. Satisfaction ratings were high for this program. Research to assess educational outcomes related to this curriculum is necessary.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it