Hands-On Workshops Improve Emergency Department Physicians' Self-Reported Understanding of Pediatric Hand Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to assess emergency department (ED) physician perception of hand injuries and improve their understanding and confidence in treating these injuries. METHODS: Combined didactic and hands-on workshops for ED physicians were developed and run by a team of medical students, plastic surgeons, and ED physicians. The workshops consisted of a short review by a hand surgeon followed by hands-on sessions involving radiograph assessment, administration of local anesthetic, closed reduction, and splinting. Two sessions, 6 months apart, were provided. The workshops were evaluated using preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires to assess the following domains: confidence and competence in treating hand injuries, knowledge of basic hand injury care, and feedback on the intervention itself. RESULTS: Fifty physicians participated in the workshops. After the workshops, physician recognition of hand fracture reduction as a critical skill increased. Self-efficacy ratings of fracture assessment, administration of local anesthetic, performing a reduction, and applying postreduction immobilization increased. Median scores on knowledge-testing questions also increased postintervention from 73.3% (95% confidence interval, 70.2-78.5) to 86.7% (95% confidence interval, 79.3-86.2) (P < 0.05). Finally, physicians reported that they found the intervention educational, useful, and important, and approximately 90% of participants indicated they intended to change their practice based on this intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge sharing between specialists and generalists through combined didactic and hands-on workshops is an effective and well-received method of refining physician knowledge and increasing confidence in treating subspecialty-specific clinical presentations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".