Resident-run urology clinics: A tool for use in competency-based medical education for teaching and assessing transition-to-practice skills.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In a competency-based approach to resident education, a component of training should focus on skills needed for the transition from residency to independent practice. The ability to run an outpatient clinic represents one such skill. Resident-run clinics (RRC) have been implemented in family medicine programs to allow residents to practice this skill, and have enhanced learning while providing excellent patient satisfaction. To date, there has been little experience with RRCs in surgical residency programs. We describe a urology RRC and report assessments of both resident performance and patient satisfaction. METHODS: The RRC was run independently by a senior urology resident. All cases were reviewed with faculty at the end of the day, and an evaluation form assessing resident performance was completed. Residents also completed a brief self-assessment. All patients completed an anonymous survey to assess aspects of patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall, resident performance was excellent, with changes to the management plan in 6% (3/47) of cases after faculty review. All clinics finished within 30 minutes of planned end time. Residents reported confidence in their ability to manage the clinic (8.25/10). Forty-three patient surveys were completed. On a five-point scale, patient ratings of wait time, clinic environment, and appointment duration were 3.91, 4.23, and 4.12, respectively. Patient ratings of resident skills (communication, sensitivity, treatment options, and answering questions) were 4.30, 4.35, 4.40, and 4.42, respectively. Overall, confidence in residents was 9.07/10 and 100% of patients would recommend the RRC. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our ongoing experience, RRCs provide well-received, safe patient care and serve as a learning tool for residents as they prepare for independent practice. Given these results, residency programs could consider inclusion of a RRC as a component of the transition- to-practice training within a competency-based curriculum.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".