564 RESIDENCY TRAINING IN NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION - COMPARATIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF UROLOGY AND OB-GYN RESIDENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyPediatrics: Congenital Anomalies - Lower Urinary Tract & Genitalia1 Apr 2011564 RESIDENCY TRAINING IN NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION - COMPARATIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF UROLOGY AND OB-GYN RESIDENTS Brian Le, Dae Kim, Vidit Sharma, Max Maizels, Jennie Mickelson, and Dana Gossett Brian LeBrian Le Chicago, IL More articles by this author , Dae KimDae Kim Chicago, IL More articles by this author , Vidit SharmaVidit Sharma Chicago, IL More articles by this author , Max MaizelsMax Maizels Chicago, IL More articles by this author , Jennie MickelsonJennie Mickelson Vancouver, Canada More articles by this author , and Dana GossettDana Gossett Chicago, IL More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.1289AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES In practice, primary care physicians are the routine providers of neonatal circumcision, yet urologists commonly manage the complications. We previously identified a need for improved formalized training in the contraindications to, evaluation and performance of neonatal circumcisions among ob-gyn residents. Here we use the same tools to conduct a needs assessment for urology residents in neonatal circumcision. METHODS An on-line survey of ob-gyn and urology residents in Chicago was conducted from Nov 2008 to Nov 2009. Using images of uncircumcised penises, residents were asked to identify which patients were candidates for routine neonatal circumcision. Residents then rated their own comfort and formal education in circumcisions. Data was analyzed using t-tests to compare the 2 groups. RESULTS 75% of ob-gyn and 65% of urology residents responded to the survey. The majority (63%) of ob-gyn residents planned to perform neonatal circumcisions once in practice, while only 27% of urology residents planned to do so. Both groups of residents described having little formal training in neonatal circumcision; with “no formal training” described by 44% of ob-gyn residents and 45% of urology residents, and a “casual briefing” by 52% and 45%, respectively. Ob-gyn residents felt significantly more comfortable than urology residents in performing neonatal circumcisions (mean of 5.9 vs. 4.4, p=0.003 - range 1 (very uncomfortable) to 7 (very comfortable)), though urology residents increased in comfort-level as PGY increased. Ob-gyn residents felt less comfortable than urology residents (mean 3.9 vs. 5.1 on scale of 7, p = 0.04) evaluating if the penis of a newborn may undergo circumcision safely. Urology residents performed better than ob-gyn residents at identifying contraindications to routine circumcision in our 10 scenarios (mean 63% vs. 43% p = 0.001). Both felt that an online-module was a good alternative to practical experience. CONCLUSIONS This needs assessment outlines that the majority of ob-gyn and urology residents have little formalized training in the contraindications and performance of neonatal circumcision. While ob-gyn residents are comfortable performing routine neonatal circumcisions, they feel significantly less comfortable evaluating the newborn penis. By contrast, urology residents are more confident with their evaluation and are better at identifying contraindications, but are less comfortable performing the procedure. This needs assessment highlights the need for further curriculum development and formalized training. © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 185Issue 4SApril 2011Page: e227-e228 Peer Review Report Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Brian Le Chicago, IL More articles by this author Dae Kim Chicago, IL More articles by this author Vidit Sharma Chicago, IL More articles by this author Max Maizels Chicago, IL More articles by this author Jennie Mickelson Vancouver, Canada More articles by this author Dana Gossett Chicago, IL More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.004 |
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".