Procedural Training and Assessment for Pediatric Emergency Medicine Physicians Within the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine current practices in procedural training and skill assessment for attending physicians working in pediatric emergency departments within the United States and Canada and identify barriers to providing training and assessment. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey study. Members of the pediatric emergency medicine fellowship program directors and associate program directors Listserv were invited to participate in an anonymous survey about attending physician training and assessment practices for 9 specific procedures and barriers to training and assessment. RESULTS: Eighty-two (56.2%) of 146 recipients responded, with 79 surveys fully completed; 58.5% of responders report that their division offers procedural training, whereas 14.6% report assessment of procedural skills. The most common procedure for which participants report training and assessment is orotracheal intubation (53.1% and 7.5%, respectively), with training rates for other procedures ranging from 2.5% to 43.0%. Most sites that report training use simulation in some form for education. For assessment, simulation is used almost exclusively. Cost (50.6%), lack of faculty interest (36.7%), and lack of standardized guidelines (36.7%) are the most common barriers to training. Lack of standardized guidelines (51.9%), cost (43.0%), and lack of faculty interest (38.0%) are the most common barriers for assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Although pediatric emergency medicine physicians may be required to perform emergent procedures, opportunities to receive training and assessment in these procedures are limited. Simulation and other educational modalities are being used to provide skill training and assessment, but cost and lack of resources, standardized protocols, and faculty interest are barriers to the implementation of training and assessment programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".