Length of family medicine training and readiness for independent practice: Residents’ perspectives at one Canadian university
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: There is ongoing debate in North America around the appropriate length of training for family physicians. This pilot study presents the results of a qualitative exploration of the viewpoints of family medicine residents at one Canadian university who were asked to reflect on their level of readiness for practice following the standard two years of training. Methods: Twenty-three family medicine residents completed an online qualitative survey that asked them to rank their self-perceived level of preparedness around the key CanMEDS-FM roles and competencies. Six residents participated in a follow-up focus group interview. A qualitative analysis of written responses to the survey and focus group data provided an insight into the residents’ viewpoints. Results: There was a sense that two years is not enough to adequately prepare for independent practice. Residents reported feeling well prepared around competencies related to communication skills and addressing psychosocial issues, however, they indicated that they would feel better prepared in their role as generalists if they had greater exposure to a broader spectrum of clinical domains and issues around practice management. Conclusions: Lengthening training in family medicine continues to receive mixed reviews. Canadian family medicine residents appear to have to master a wider breadth of knowledge within a shorter training period compared to their peers in other specialties. The new competency-based curriculum (Triple C) in family medicine may influence the residents’ sense of readiness for practice.
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 | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".