MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164926149 · doi:10.1111/medu.12503

Supervising incoming first‐year residents: faculty expectations versus residents' experiences

2014· article· en· W2164926149 on OpenAlexafffund
Claire Touchie, André De Champlain, Debra Pugh, Steven M. Downing, Georges Bordage

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMedical Council of Canada
FundersMedical Council of Canada
KeywordsMedical educationFamily medicinePsychologyMedicineMEDLINEGerontologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: First-year residents begin clinical practice in settings in which attending staff and senior residents are available to supervise their work. There is an expectation that, while being supervised and as they become more experienced, residents will gradually take on more responsibilities and function independently. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to define 'entrustable professional activities' (EPAs) and determine the extent of agreement between the level of supervision expected by clinical supervisors (CSs) and the level of supervision reported by first-year residents. METHODS: Using a nominal group technique, subject matter experts (SMEs) from multiple specialties defined EPAs for incoming residents; these represented a set of activities to be performed independently by residents by the end of the first year of residency, regardless of specialty. We then surveyed CSs and first-year residents from one institution in order to compare the levels of supervision expected and received during the day and night for each EPA. RESULTS: The SMEs defined 10 EPAs (e.g. completing admission orders, obtaining informed consent) that were ratified by a national panel. A total of 113 CSs and 48 residents completed the survey. Clinical supervisors had the same expectations regardless of time of day. For three EPAs (managing i.v. fluids, obtaining informed consent, obtaining advanced directives) the level of supervision reported by first-year residents was lower than that expected by CSs (p < 0.001) regardless of time of day (i.e. day or night). For four more EPAs (initiating the management of a critically ill patient, handing over the care of a patient to colleagues, writing a discharge prescription, coordinating a patient discharge) differences applied only to night-time work (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: First-year residents reported performing EPAs with less supervision than expected by CSs, especially during the night. Using EPAs to guide the content of the undergraduate curriculum and during examinations could help better align CSs' and residents' expectations about early residency supervision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207