A Survey of Arthrocentesis and Soft-Tissue Injection Procedures Performed in Primary Care Practice: Effect of Resident Training and Using Data to Shape Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is (1) to survey graduates of our internal medicine program for use of musculoskeletal (MSK) procedures in primary care practice and assess the influence of participating in a first-year resident arthrocentesis and soft-tissue injection training course on their MSK procedure comfort/utilization; and (2) to use the results to modify our MSK procedure curriculum. METHODS: A questionnaire designed to assess numbers of, comfort with, and effect of resident training on MSK procedures in the preceding year was sent to 2002-2006 graduates of the internal medicine training program in outpatient primary care (OPC). Graduates practicing hospital medicine (HM) also received the questionnaire and served as a comparison group. RESULTS: There were 52 responses from this group of 84 graduates (64% response rate). OPC graduates (N = 32) were more comfortable doing procedures than those practicing HM exclusively (N = 20), and performed significantly more procedures in the preceding year (32.9 procedures per OPC/year vs 2.2 for HM). The most common procedures performed were knee joint, subacromial bursa, and trochanteric bursa, comprising > 75% of all procedures performed. A structured resident course in MSK procedures had a significant effect on the OPC physicians. Course participants (N = 17) performed almost twice the number of procedures/year as the nonparticipants (N = 15), were more comfortable with the procedures, and were significantly less likely to refer procedures to other clinicians. Written comments by respondents suggest additional MSK procedure training during and after residency is needed. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest a structured resident course in MSK procedures has a longterm influence. A progressively more focused approach to training is needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".