MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610526310 · doi:10.25011/cim.v30i4.2814

53. Resident training and the dictated operative report - A national perspectives

2007· article· en· W2610526310 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lawrence M. Gillman, Ashley Vergis, J. Park, Matthew T. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Imaging in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDictationResidency trainingFamily medicineMedicineProgram directorMedical educationComputer scienceContinuing education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Operative dictation training is a poorly studied area of surgical resident education and there is currently no literature on the national experience with operative dictation training in Canada. We therefore undertook a web-based survey of residents and program directors in general surgery training programs in Canada to determine if there is an ongoing desire for formal operative dictation training. 
 Every resident and program director in English speaking General Surgery programs in Canada was contacted by email and asked to participate in the study. A secure, web based survey program was developed to conduct the survey and collect the data. The survey contained questions regarding comfort level with dictation, feedback on dictations and methods of dictation training employed by the individual residents and the resident training programs. 
 Two hundred and seventy-four residents and 11 program directors responded to the survey (70.4% and 78.5% response rate, respectively). Among residents, 201 residents (73.3%) reported that their dictations were in need of improvement while 191 residents (69.7%) requested further training in dictation. Two-hundred and six residents (75.2%) reported that their training program did not employ any formal methods to help improve their dictations. Furthermore, 153 residents (55.8%) had never received feedback on their dictations.
 Ten program directors (90.9%) felt that residency programs should include formal training in operative dictation. Unfortunately, half of these program directors could not identify any formal methods currently being employed in their training programs, this despite the fact that 45.5% of program directors could identify specific instances where direct patient care was negatively affected by a poor operative report.
 Both program directors and residents identified operative dictation templates and formal feedback on dictations as the two interventions they would like to see instituted to improve operative dictations in their residency training programs.
 Residents and program director recognize a need for the development of formal operative dictation training in Canada.
 Eichholz AC, Van Voorhis BJ, Sorosky JI, Smith BJ, Sood AK. Operative note dictation: should it be taught routinely in residency programs? Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004; 103:342-6.
 Menzin AW, Spitzer M. Teaching operative dictation. A survey of obstetrics/gynecology residency program directors. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2003; 48:850-2.
 Moore RA. The dictated operative note: important but is it being taught? Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2000; 190:639-40.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.038
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicDigital Imaging in MedicineFrench-language works237,207