MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625578482 · doi:10.4300/jgme-d-16-00462.1

The Nightmares Course: A Longitudinal, Multidisciplinary, Simulation-Based Curriculum to Train and Assess Resident Competence in Resuscitation

2017· article· en· W2625578482 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graduate Medical Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummative assessmentFormative assessmentObjective structured clinical examinationCompetence (human resources)Medical educationCurriculumEducational measurementSession (web analytics)MedicineChecklistGeneralizability theoryPsychologyComputer sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postgraduate medical education programs would benefit from a robust process for training and assessment of competence in resuscitation early in residency. OBJECTIVE: To describe and evaluate the Nightmares Course, a novel, competency-based, transitional curriculum and assessment program in resuscitation medicine at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. METHODS: First-year residents participated in the longitudinal Nightmares Course at Queen's University during the 2015-2016 academic year. An expert working group developed the entrustable professional activity and curricular design for the course. Formative feedback was provided following each simulation-based session, and we employed a summative objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) utilizing a modified Queen's Simulation Assessment Tool. A generalizability study and resident surveys were performed to evaluate the course and assessment process. RESULTS: A total of 40 residents participated in the course, and 23 (58%) participated in the OSCE. Eight of 23 (35%) did not meet the predetermined competency threshold and required remediation. The OSCE demonstrated an acceptable phi coefficient of 0.73. The approximate costs were $240 per Nightmares session, $10,560 for the entire 44-session curriculum, and $3,900 for the summative OSCE. CONCLUSIONS: The Nightmares Course demonstrated feasibility and acceptability, and is applicable to a broad array of postgraduate medical education programs. The entrustment-based assessment detected several residents not meeting a minimum competency threshold, and directed them to additional 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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.369 · 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