Otolaryngology Education in the University of Calgary Undergraduate Medical Curriculum: A Needs Assessment Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Perform a needs assessment study on otolaryngology teaching in pre‐clerkship medical students. Secondary outcomes include evaluating the quantity and nature of, as well as student perceptions of, current otolaryngology teaching at the University of Calgary. Methods: This is a survey based cohort study of first and second year medical students at the University of Calgary, completed in January and February 2013. The survey was based on the otolaryngology competencies outlined by the national medical board (MCCQE Part I objectives). Results: There were 150 responses (response rate of 42.9%). Thirty‐eight (74.5%) of first year respondents have had less than 10 hours of otolaryngology teaching, and of these experiences, 19 (50%) were with family physicians and only 2 (5%) were with otolaryngology staff. For the second year class, 60 (60.6%) have had less than 10 hours of otolaryngology teaching, 24 (24.2%) have had between 10‐24 hours, and 15 (15.2%) have had greater than 24 hours. Forty‐eight students (48.5%) received teaching by otolaryngology staff/residents and 19 (19.2%) by family physicians. Low confidence was expressed by both cohorts in performing head and neck exams as well as approaching common otolaryngology pathologies. Conclusions: There is a perceived deficiency in the otolaryngology component of the undergraduate medical curriculum, especially in the areas of performing otolaryngologic physical examinations and approaching otolaryngologic pathologies. Learning strategies perceived to have high educational value include physical exam sessions and small group case‐based learning sessions facilitated by an otolaryngology staff or resident, as well as attending otolaryngology clinics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".