Knowledge and confidence in performing the pudendal block: an assessment of Newfoundland OBGYN residents and physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The objectives of this study are to assess the knowledge of both OBGYN physicians and residents in Newfoundland on the utilization and administration of the pudendal block. Moreover, the participants attitude and confidence for this procedure will be explored. Finally, the barriers of performing the pudendal block in labor will be identified. Methods A prospective audit of residents and physicians of Newfoundland was conducted during April and May of 2018. The physicians and residents were invited to participate in a paper-based survey. The data was analyzed with SAS software. Results The results of the study showed no statistical significance between staff and residents in their knowledge of the labor pudendal block technique. However, 88% of residents believed that this topic was not covered well in the residency curriculum. Moreover, 94% of residents felt that they were not adequately prepared to provide the pudendal block as an option for labor analgesia in their practice. Conclusions While the textbook knowledge between staff and residents is similar, the practical training of pudendal block administration is lacking in residents. Moreover, there is a decline in the provision of the pudendal block for labor analgesia in Newfoundland which may partly be due to the staff physicians’ perception of its effectiveness. As a result, residents are not receiving adequate exposure to this in their training. A final consequence is the decrease in the confidence of trainees to perform the pudendal block in their future practices. From this study, it appears that a curriculum change is necessary.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".