Program directors’ perceptions of importance of pediatric procedural skills and resident preparedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) objectives for training in pediatrics include 26 procedural skills, 11 of which are included in the final in-training evaluation report (FITER). The importance of each procedure for practice and the preparedness of pediatric residency graduates to perform these procedures are not known. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to all pediatric residency program directors and members of the RCPSC Specialty Committee in Pediatrics (N = 21) in October 2010, requesting them to rate the perceived importance and preparedness of graduating pediatric residents in all procedural skills on a 5 point Likert scale, as well as the presence of a curriculum and documentation for each procedure. Mean importance and preparedness were calculated for each procedure. RESULTS: Response rate was 16/21 (76 %). Perceived preparedness was significantly lower than importance for the majority of procedures (p < 0.05). Ten procedures had a high mean importance rating (>3) but a low mean preparedness rating (<3). Presence of a curriculum and documentation for procedures varied across centers, and their presence was correlated with both perceived importance and preparedness (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Many procedures in which pediatric residents are required to be competent by the RCPSC are felt to be important. Residents are not felt to be adequately prepared in several of the required procedures by the time of graduation. Procedures with high ratings of importance but low preparedness ratings should be targeted for curricular interventions.
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 | 0.021 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".