Do PGY-1 residents in Emergency Medicine have enough experiences in resuscitations and other clinical procedures to meet the requirements of a Competence by Design curriculum?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the transition to a Competence by Design (CBD) curriculum, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in Emergency Medicine (FRCP-EM) training has created guidelines on experiences residents should have before progressing. We sought to quantify adult medical resuscitations and clinical procedures completed by PGY1 FRCP-EM residents to compare them to CBD requirements with the aim to identify areas of limited exposure requiring curriculum revisions prior to nation-wide CBD implementation. METHODS: Twenty-two PGY1 residents from four FRCP-EM programs recorded their activities from July 2017 to June 2018 in an online log that tracked resuscitations and procedures along with role assumed, supervision, and level of comfort. RESULTS: In total 515 resuscitations were logged with the median number per resident 15 (range 0 to 98). The most frequent resuscitation was altered mental status and the least was unstable dysrhythmia. 557 total procedures were logged with the median number 75 (range 8 to 273). The most frequent procedure done was simple laceration repair and the least frequent was intraosseous access. CONCLUSIONS: Unstable dysrhythmias and cardiorespiratory arrest along with intraosseous access and arthrocentesis are low event clinical exposures. In the era of CBD, the misalignment of entrustrable professional activity (EPA) targets and curriculum delivery should be monitored/reviewed to ensure expectations are realistic and that sufficient exposures are available.
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".