Transfusion Camp: a prospective evaluation of a transfusion education program for multispecialty postgraduate trainees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal method of providing transfusion medicine (TM) education has not been determined. Transfusion Camp was established in 2012 at the University of Toronto as a centrally delivered TM education program for postgraduate trainees. The impact of Transfusion Camp on knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported behavior was evaluated. METHODS: Didactic lectures (delivered locally, by webinar, or recorded) and locally facilitated team-based learning seminars were delivered over 5 days during the academic year to 8 sites: 7 in Canada and 1 in the United Kingdom. Knowledge assessment using a validated 20-question multiple-choice exam was conducted before and after Transfusion Camp. Attitudes and self-reported behavior were collected through a survey. RESULTS: Over 2 academic years (July 2016 to June 2018), 390 trainees from 16 different specialties (predominantly anesthesia, 41%; hematology, 14%; and critical care, 7%) attended at least 1 day of Transfusion Camp. The mean pretest score was 10.3 of 20 (±2.9; n = 286) compared with posttest score of 13.0 (±2.8; n = 194; p < 0.0001). Lower pretest score and greater attendance (4-5 days compared with 1-3 days) were associated with larger improvement in posttest score; delivery format, specialty, and postgraduate year were not. Trainees reported an improvement in self-rated abilities to manage TM scenarios; 95% rated TM knowledge as very or extremely important in providing patient care; and 81% indicated that they had applied learning from Transfusion Camp into clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Transfusion Camp increased TM knowledge, fostered a positive attitude toward TM, and enabled a self-reported positive impact on transfusion practice in postgraduate trainees. It is a novel and scalable approach to delivering TM education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".