MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2898133029 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxy100

Learn CPS curriculum: Satisfaction survey of final year paediatric residents who participated in a pilot initiative to improve uptake of CPS position statements and practice points

2018· article· en· W2898133029 on OpenAlexaff
Mihir D. Bhatt, Moyez Ladhani

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumPosition (finance)Medical educationPosition paperPsychologyMedicinePedagogyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) position statements (PSs) or practice points (PPs) are a result of extensive literature review and expert discussions, providing valuable recommendations for paediatric patient care. There is no research to date evaluating reading and implementation of CPS PSs/PPs. We piloted a curriculum, named Learn CPS, at McMaster University from 2013 to 2016 to integrate focused learning of PSs/PPs among final year paediatric residents. A Learn CPS curriculum session was scheduled every 2 weeks. Participating residents read 12 to 15 PSs/PPs prior to each session. Each session consisted of a quiz with 8 to 10 multiple choice and 4 to 6 short answer questions developed by graduated McMaster paediatric residents. Quiz questions covered most but not all of the 12 to 15 PSs/PPs. Following the quiz, answers were reviewed with emphasis on concepts presented in particular PSs/PPs. Hereby, we take the opportunity to communicate the results of a survey, conducted using 5-point Likert scale, of paediatric residents who participated in this pilot initiative. The survey response rate was 63% (25/40). Prior to the Learn CPS curriculum, 59% of responding residents had read less than 100 CPS PSs/PPs (<25: 0, 25 to 50: 6, 50 to 100: 9). Seventy per cent of those residents identified ‘not enough time’ as the major obstacle, while 20% felt it was ‘not emphasized in the program’. Prior to the Learn CPS curriculum, 59% of the residents felt they received teaching about CPS PSs/PPs in residency. Of these, seven residents received it during bedside teaching (54%), while six received it during resident led teaching sessions (46%). However, only 27% felt they actually applied recommendations from CPS PSs/PPs in clinical practice, where applicable, ‘often’ or ‘almost always’. Twenty-eight per cent of the residents had ‘almost never’ or ‘once in a while’ applied these recommendations, while 45% said they applied it ‘sometimes’. The great majority of residents (73%) were ‘quite satisfied’ or ‘extremely satisfied’ with the quality of quizzes at the Learn CPS sessions. The rating of post-quiz review and discussion was similar, with 86% of respondents expressing their satisfaction. The majority of respondents (63%) felt that these sessions motivated them ‘quite a bit’ or ‘a great deal’ to read CPS PSs/PPs early in their exam preparation, while 10% thought that it provided ‘almost no’ or ‘a little bit’ of motivation. All of the responding residents felt that the Learn CPS curriculum was important for their Royal College exam preparation, with 86% rating it to be ‘quite important’ or ‘extremely important’. This is the first study in Canada to assess reading and learning of CPS PSs/PPs in a small group of final year paediatric residents and highlight the effectiveness of an organized curriculum to improve it. The Learn CPS curriculum at McMaster University was a pilot initiative valued by the participating residents. A modified version of the curriculum was subsequently included in the residency education for all residents at McMaster University. In the modified version, a senior resident leads each session with faculty facilitation. The number of PSs/PPs covered in each session has been reduced (6 to 8 versus 12 to 15). The focus is on reviewing only the ‘high-yield’ CPS PSs/PPs that were identified using a modified Delphi method incorporating expertise from senior residents and subspecialty staff. Each session consists of detailed presentations of 2 to 3 PSs/PPs, then brief presentations of remaining PSs/PPs, followed by review questions based on those statements. The Learn CPS curriculum initiative demonstrated the potential utility of incorporating teaching of CPS PSs/PPs in an organized manner as part of residency education. Further research is required to see whether such initiatives translate into improved uptake and implementation of PSs/PPs in independent practice. Funding: There was no funding for this study. Conflict of Interest: The authors do not have any conflict of interest in relation to the content presented in this manuscript.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→