Procedural Knowledge and Skills of Residents Entering Canadian Family Medicine Programs in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Incoming family medicine (FM) residents start residency with different levels of procedural training. Understanding their baseline skill level is necessary to plan the educational experiences and teaching methods that will provide the desired knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to performing medical procedures. METHODS: A survey of 69 procedures based on the core list issued by the College of Family Physicians of Canada was administered to incoming residents in Alberta (Calgary and Edmonton FM programs). The survey intended to identify the levels of training and confidence acquired for each listed procedure before residency, and plans to perform each of the procedures in future independent practice. RESULTS: A total of 146 residents from both programs responded to the survey (82% response rate). Of the 69 procedures evaluated, 15 (21.7%) had been previously performed at least five times by 50% or more residents. Only five procedures were rated by 80% or more of the residents as being able to perform independently or to teach to others: simple suture, infiltration of local anesthetic, intramuscular injection, cryotherapy of skin lesions and Pap smear. More male residents than female residents felt confident in performing 10 procedures, while female residents were more confident in performing Pap smears. Rural residents felt more confident to perform 22 procedures than their urban colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: This information demonstrates limited prior training in procedures among entering residents, and provides guidance to FM programs to develop teaching interventions to achieve competence in those procedural skills seen as necessary for family physicians.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".