Generic medical and surgical endoscopy training lists can improve the number of opportunities for training in colonoscopy: Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The Joint Advisory Group on GI endoscopy (JAG), advise that endoscopy units provide one training list per week per trainee. In late 2009 it was observed that insufficient opportunities for training were available in our unit to meet this criteria. This was thought to be as a result of trainees being attached to a single trainer, with subsequent cancellation of training lists due to on call commitments, annual leave and study leave. As a response, in early 2010 we introduced generic training lists where medical and surgical consultants would identify a defined number of endoscopy training lists they could offer each month. Trainees would then allocate themselves to lists according to their timetable, and as a consequence receive training and feedback from a variety of medical and surgical trainers. The aim of this study was to analyse the outcomes of this new training system. Methods An audit of the JETS eportfolio for the 5 colonoscopy trainees (3 medical and 2 surgical) within our unit, was undertaken to determine the number of training lists attended in the 4 th quarter of 2009 prior to introducing generic training lists, and to compare this to the 2 nd quarter of 2010 following commencement of the new system. Trainees were also asked to comment on their experience of the generic training lists. Results The results of the audit are summarised in table 1. There was an increase in the mean number of training lists from 7.8 per quarter to 13.6 per quarter per trainee as a result of the new system. This was associated with a mean increase in caecal intubation rate, number of procedures performed, and the number of Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) forms completed for each trainee. Four of the five trainees felt that the variety of trainers in the new system was an advantage over being taught by one trainer. Table 1 PTU-128 Mean number of training lists attended per trainee and performance data before and after introduction of generic training lists 4th quarter 2009 mean (95% CI) 2nd quarter 2010 mean (95% CI) Number of training lists attended 7.8 (0.98, 14.62) 13.6 (4.66, 22.54) Caecal intubation rate 68.4% (24.6, 112.3) 90.4% (77.62, 103.18) Number of colonoscopies performed 12 (0.45, 23.55) 39 (2.1, 75.9) Number of DOPS forms completed 2.4 (−0.84, 5.64) 7 (1.45, 12.55) Conclusion The introduction of generic medical and surgical endoscopy training lists can improve the number of training lists available to trainees in accordance with JAG guidance. This may lead to improvement in trainee caecal intubation rates, and an increase in the amount of formal feedback provided by trainers.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".