MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2411910337

Supervising New PGY-1 Residents: Faculty Expectations vs. Residents’ Perceptions - A Case Study

2014· article· en· W2411910337 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Claire Touchie

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsPerceptionMedical educationPsychologyMedicineFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postgraduate year-1 residents (PGY-1s) begin clinical practice in a setting where 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, the PGY-1s will gradually take on more responsibilities and function independently.\nOBJECTIVE: To determine the degree of agreement between the level of supervision expected by clinical supervisors (CSs) and the level of supervision reported by PGY-1s.\nMETHODS: Using a nominal group technique, subject matter experts (SMEs) from multiple specialties defined “entrustable professional activities” (EPAs) for PGY-1s, that is, a set of activities to be performed independently by PGY-1s by the end of their first year of residency, regardless of specialty. We then surveyed and compared CSs and PGY-1s from one institution regarding levels of supervision expected and received during the daytime and nighttime for each EPA. \nRESULTS: The SMEs defined 10 EPAs (e.g., completing admission orders, obtaining informed consent), ratified by a national panel, and 113 CSs and 48 PGY-1s completed the survey. CSs had the same expectations regardless of the time of day. For three EPAs (managing intravenous fluids, obtaining informed consent, and obtaining advanced directives) the level of supervision reported by PGY-1s was lower than what CSs expected (p<0.001) regardless of the time of day (i.e., day versus night). For four more EPAs (initiating the management of critically ill patients, handing over the care of patients to colleagues, writing discharge prescriptions, and coordinating a patient discharge) the differences only occurred during nighttime work (p0.001). \nCONCLUSION: PGY-1s reported performing EPAs with less supervision than expected by CSs, especially during nighttime work. Using EPAs to guide the content of the undergraduate curriculum and during examinations could help better align CSs’ and PGY-1s’ 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→