(MED) RESIDENT SATISFACTION IN CANADIAN PEDIATRIC RESIDENT CONTINUITY CLINICS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Resident continuity clinics (RCCs) provide an opportunity for residents to gain experience with longitudinal care in an outpatient setting. RCCs have become a part of almost all recognized residency training programs across specialties in North America. However, the structure, function, and effectiveness of RCCs vary widely. OBJECTIVES To determine resident perspective on the structure and function of paediatric RCCs and investigate which factors were associated with resident satisfaction with paediatric RCCs. DESIGN/METHODS A qualitative survey of Canadian paediatric resident trainees was conducted to assess their RCC experience. The survey was administered through the REDCap© database and distributed through the Canadian Pediatric Program Directors Consortium in June-July 2016. RESULTS There were 127 respondents. Approximately 40% participated in RCCs. The majority of respondents were likely to recommend RCCs to other programs. The most common structure reported was a monthly half-day clinic overseen by an academic paediatrician. Referrals were mainly from inpatient wards, emergency department or family physicians. The majority of residents were satisfied with their experience (n=33, 71.7%). Participants in resident-run RCCs had more positive views compared to participants in staff-run RCCs (all U≥25.0, p≤0.009). Contributing factors to a positive RCC experience included patient-resident continuity, being viewed as the main care provider, and learning to make independent management decisions. CONCLUSION Almost all respondents felt that RCCs should be part of paediatric residency training. Further research is needed to determine the optimal structure for paediatric RCCs. Understanding our current training environment is an important precursor for informing program leadership and national policymakers who wish to improve ambulatory care 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".