The Role of Residents in the Gynecologic Operating Room – What Do Patients Understand? [5O]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies in emergency medicine show that patients believe it is important to know the training level of their doctor, but most do not understand the responsibilities of physicians-in-training. No research on this topic has been published in gynecology, even though gynecological surgeons have been sued by patients alleging they did not understand the role of residents in their surgery. The goal of this research was to explore what gynecological surgery patients understand about the role of resident doctors. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to female patients in pre-admission clinics awaiting gynecological surgery in Edmonton. Surveys included knowledge and opinion-based questions about resident duties. Anonymous responses were entered into a REDCap database. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the results. RESULTS: Of 108 participants, 83% understood that residents had a higher level of training than medical students, yet 40% were unsure if residents were doctors. Almost half (43%) were uncertain if residents required supervision, including while operating (20%). The majority (92%) felt it was important to know their physician's level of training, yet only 63% reported actually knowing this information. Only half of participants would be comfortable with residents operating on them under supervision. A considerable number (56%) wanted to learn more about residents' roles. CONCLUSION: Patients do not fully understand the role of residents and many are uncomfortable with trainees operating on them under supervision. Considering the significant role of residents in patient care, educating patients is essential to improve their comfort and the overall consent process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".