An Objective Way to Evaluate Continuity of Care in Residency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To develop a tool to assess Canadian family medicine residents in regards to continuity of care (COC).Design: Analysis of the first 100 patient visits of family medicine residents during their four-month block time in the second year of residency. Data was collected between the years of 2009 and 2012 and used to construct standardized curves for COC.Setting: West Winds Primary Health Centre in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.Participants: 36 second-year family medicine residents training at West Winds Primary Health Centre in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.Main outcome measures: The number of unique patients that a family medicine second-year resident encounters within the first 100 patient visits of family medicine block time.Results: Family medicine residents demonstrate individual variation in the number of unique patients they encounter within one hundred patientvisits.Conclusion: It is possible to develop a tool that can assess second-year family medicine residents in their ability to practise COC. This tool can be used to identify residents in difficulty, such that appropriate interventions can be made early on in their family medicine block time. Further research, involving residents from across Canada, is needed before this tool can be employed in a widespread manner.
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 | 0.016 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".