How do Supervising Clinicians of a University Hospital and Associated Teaching Hospitals Rate the Relevance of the Key Competencies within the CanMEDS Roles Framework in Respect to Teaching in Clinical Clerkships?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: In German-speaking countries, the physicians' roles framework of the "Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists" (CanMEDS) is increasingly used to conceptualize postgraduate medical education. It is however unclear, whether it may also be applied to the final year of undergraduate education within clinical clerkships, called "Practical Year" (PY). Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore how clinically active physicians at a university hospital and at associated teaching hospitals judge the relevance of the seven CanMEDS roles (and their (role-defining) key competencies) in respect to their clinical work and as learning content for PY training. Furthermore, these physicians were asked whether the key competencies were actually taught during PY training. METHODS: 124 physicians from internal medicine and surgery rated the relevance of the 28 key competencies of the CanMEDS framework using a questionnaire. For each competency, following three aspects were rated: "relevance for your personal daily work", "importance for teaching during PY", and "implementation into actual PY teaching". RESULTS: In respect to the main study objective, all questionnaires could be included into analysis. All seven CanMEDS roles were rated as relevant for personal daily work, and also as important for teaching during PY. Furthermore, all roles were stated to be taught during actual PY training. The roles "Communicator", "Medical Expert", and "Collaborator" were rated as significantly more important than the other roles, for all three sub-questions. No differences were found between the two disciplines internal medicine and surgery, nor between the university hospital and associated teaching hospitals. CONCLUSION: Participating physicians rated all key competencies of the CanMEDS model to be relevant for their personal daily work, and for teaching during PY. These findings support the suitability of the CanMEDS framework as a conceptual element of PY training.
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 | 0.007 | 0.064 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".