Procedural skill needs for Canadian paediatricians: A national profile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Procedural practice by paediatricians in Canada is evolving. Little empirical information is available on the procedural competencies required of general paediatricians. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to conduct a needs assessment of Canadian general paediatricians to identify procedural skills required for practice, with the goal of informing post-graduate and continuing medical education. Methods: A survey was sent to paediatricians through the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) (www.cpsp.cps.ca/surveillance). In addition to demographic information about practice type and location, participants were asked to indicate the frequency with which they performed each of 32 pre-selected procedures and whether each procedure was considered essential to their practice. Results: The survey response rate was 33.2% (938/2,822). Data from participants who primarily practice general paediatrics were analyzed (n=481). Of these, 71.0% reported performing procedures. The most frequently performed procedures were: bag-valve-mask ventilation of an infant, lumbar puncture, and ear curettage, being performed monthly by 40.8%, 34.1%, and 27.7% of paediatricians, respectively. The procedures performed by most paediatricians were also those found most essential to practice, with a few exceptions. Respondents performed infant airway procedures with greater frequency and rated them more essential when compared to the same skill performed on children. We found a negative correlation between procedures being performed and difficulty maintaining proficiency in a skill. Conclusions: This report of experiences from Canadian general paediatricians suggests a wide variability in the frequency of procedural performance. It helps establish priorities for post-graduate and continuing professional medical education curricula in the era of competency-based medical 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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".