The State of Burn Care Training During Plastic Surgery Residency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is an ongoing shortage of burn specialists, and workforce reports suggest possible hurdles attracting plastic surgeons into burn care. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the state of burn care in plastic surgery residency and (2) identify what barriers might exist for plastic surgeons pursuing a practice that involves burn care. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to North American plastic surgery program directors and residents, respectively, during the 2018-2019 academic year. RESULTS: Fifty-eight program directors (response, 54%) and 320 plastic surgery residents (response, 30%) participated. Burn care was felt to be an important component in training by most program directors (USA, 88%; Canada, 100%) and residents (USA, 87%; Canada, 99%). The majority of program directors included a burn unit rotation (USA, 88%; Canada, 90%). Rotations for integrated residents averaged 2.5 months and most commonly occurred during second year; independent residents spent 1.2 months on rotation, usually in first year. Three-quarters of American residents were interested in a career that involves burn care in some capacity, primarily burn reconstruction (40%). Factors that would discourage a trainee from practicing burn care in the future included the nature of burn care (60%) and burn operations (45%), the on-call commitment (39%), and a narrow scope of practice (38%). DISCUSSION: This study challenges the belief that plastic surgery trainees are disinterested in burn care. Burn surgery remains an important component of training programs, and we propose several steps to encourage greater interest and participation in the burn surgery workforce.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".