Procedural skills in paediatric residency: Re-evaluating the competencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) sets objectives for residency training, including many skills that may not be commonly performed in practice. OBJECTIVE: To describe attitudes of residents enrolled in Canadian paediatric residency programs toward procedural skills training, including perception of importance and perceived proficiency of the RCPSC-required procedures. METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to all senior residents enrolled in Canadian paediatric residencies, using a five-point Likert scale to address procedural importance and corresponding proficiency. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, with Pearson correlation coefficients used to describe relationships among variables. RESULTS: A total of 68 residents responded. Fifteen skills had a mean importance ≥4 (very or extremely important) and five skills had a mean rating <3 (somewhat or not important). Residents believed they were extremely or very proficient (mean rating ≥4) for three skills (bag-mask ventilation, lumbar puncture and chest x-ray interpretation). They reported 23 procedures for which they felt somewhat to not proficient (mean <3). The correlation between importance and proficiency was high (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.87). However, proficiency was significantly lower than importance (P<0.05) for the majority of procedures (88%). The largest gaps between importance and proficiency were observed for chest tube insertion, gathering evidence of child maltreatment, defibrillation and intraosseous insertion. CONCLUSION: Many, but not all, RCPSC-required procedures are believed to be important. Residents do not believe that they are adequately proficient in many of these procedures. Skills with the greatest gap between importance and proficiency may be targets 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 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 | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".