P396 Differences in endoscopy training rates in Wales – implications in the shape of training era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The ‘Shape of Training’ programme has reduced time for specialty training programmes. Understanding patterns of actual training provision across regions may assist maximising efficient training. For trainees to complete certification before CCST award requires training rates of 50 upper GI points per quarter (200 cases/year) in early training, followed by 50 lower GI points per quarter (100 cases/year). Aim To provide data on historical patterns of endoscopy training provision for Gastroenterology Specialty Trainees across regional training sites. Methods Regional data for all Gastroenterology trainees in the Wales deanery from 2013–2019 including procedural data for different endoscopy subtypes and certification information was examined. The numbers of training procedures and procedure points were calculated for all registered trainees at each training site over the study period. To allow comparison across regions a quarterly procedural progression rate (QPPR) was calculated (total training points/number of trainees). Pre- and post-certification procedures were differentiated, trainee periods were out of programme or working LTFT were excluded from analysis. Results Endoscopic training data on all rotational placements was available for 28 trainees. Training was conducted at 15 sites, in 6 Health Boards (HB) Regions. The table 1 shows QPPR for each region over time. Two-fold differences in training activity for both UGI and LGI endoscopy were seen between the highest and lowest performing HBs. Only 1 out of 6 HBs delivered QPPRs in UGI or LGI endoscopy in the pre-certifcation phase that may be required in the Shape of Training era. Trainees in endoscopy fellowship posts achieved considerably higher PPR (253 for LGI). Conclusions This study reviewing training provision across a region for seven years revealed differences in provision of training between HBs. Current rates of training delivery would not allow trainees to achieve full sign off for gastroscopy and colonoscopy within 4 years of specialty training. Formal training fellowships may provide a mechanism to increase PPR significantly.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".