THE PAEDIATRICIAN AS A LEADER: AN EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTION FOR HIGH-VALUE CARE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND The CanMEDS framework for physician competency defines necessary competencies of medical practice, laying the foundation for medical education and subsequent practice in Canada to meet patient needs. The role of Leader highlights the importance of quality improvement, stewardship, health care resource allocation and ability to apply evidence and management processes to facilitate cost-appropriate care. Educational innovations in this domain have not previously been described. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the impact of an educational intervention developed to foster stewardship of health care resources for paediatricians in training. DESIGN/METHODS An educational workshop on high-value care was created for general paediatric residents. Prior to workshop development, the study team procured local costing information from microbiology, general chemistry/laboratory, pharmacy, and radiology. During the workshop, individual, small group and interactive activities were used to explore clinical decision making and associated costs, radiation dosing, and non-monetary implications of care. A pocket-card reference was developed for use during the exercises. To assess the impact of the workshop, participants completed a post-workshop reflection asking them to identify lessons learned and an action plan for providing high-value care. Qualitative exploration of statements was conducted using thematic analysis; individual responses were coded and grouped into three overarching themes for both lessons learned and action plan. RESULTS Forty-three learners participated in the workshop. Post-workshop reflections yielded 93 lessons learned statements, and 67 action plan statements. Lessons learned were grouped into three themes: Scope, Content and Judgement Statements. Within Scope, most statements were general (80%) versus specific. Content areas most frequently cited included cost (61%), diagnostic imaging (28%) including radiation exposure (14%), and non-monetary costs of care (17%). Inferences about aspects of learnings, such as those referring to expense, value or waste, were labelled as Judgement Statements, and were present in 50% of the responses. Action plan statements were grouped into themes of Scope, Content and Action Words. Responses were again generally focused (87%). Most frequent Content subtheme responses were: tests (37%), non-monetary costs of care (21%), and diagnostic imaging (12%). Action words were grouped into seven categories as depicted in Figure 1, with Consider as most frequent (46%). CONCLUSION Reflections on non-monetary costs and action plans that consider how investigations might change management seemed to resonate with our single centre paediatric trainees. Longitudinal follow-up may help identify most impactful components of this educational workshop.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".