Skills, Practice Patterns, and Knowledge of Canadian Family Physician Endoscopists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In Canada, few family physicians (FPs) perform endoscopy. Conflicting evidence exists on the quality of endoscopy performed by Canadian FPs, which may be explained by differing skillsets of these endoscopists. The objective of this study was to perform the first exploration of the practice, skills, and knowledge of Canadian FP endoscopists. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey, including direct knowledge test, was used. RESULTS: Twenty Canadian FP endoscopists completed the survey. Ninety-five percent practice outside urban centres, all perform gastroscopies, and 85% perform colonoscopies and polypectomies. These endoscopists are performing about 32 procedures per month. They are using split bowel preparations, performing rectal retroflexion, and tattooing advanced lesions, all characteristics of a quality endoscopist or program. Self-identified knowledge gaps identified included caring for patients with inflammatory bowel disease and staging rectal cancer. Direct testing found gaps in describing Barrett's esophagitis and managing anticoagulated patients who require endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian FP endoscopists appear to be providing quality endoscopic exams and should be supported and encouraged to continue to provide care of rural Canadian patients with gastrointestinal concerns. Future training and continuing education events aimed at this group of endoscopists should target identified knowledge gaps.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".