Addressing Transition to Practice: Assessing Perceived Effectiveness of a Competency Based Change to On-Call Responsibilities of Senior Cardiology Residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There has been a paradigm shift in residency training over the last several years wherein Competency by Design (CBD) is being integrated to replace more traditional time-based models of training. The Residency Program Committee (RPC) for the Cardiology training program at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada addressed the Transition to Practice stage by approving a trial of adjusting the resident call responsibilities to reflect the transition to CBD curriculum. The goal of this adjustment was three-fold: i. Gradually increase accountability of the senior cardiology resident as they transition to practice; ii. Address a gap in training that allows the senior resident to have a gradual transition to the role of a practicing cardiologist while on call; iii. Allows further evolution of skills and abilities. Methods: A survey was administered to the practitioners involved in this competency based changes to the call responsibilities. Surveys were distributed to the final year Cardiology Residents, Staff Cardiologists, and Senior Internal Medicine residents to assess their experience and opinions of the current, competency-based change of the on-call curriculum. The survey consisted of eleven questions, of which, four were assessed on a Likert scale and 3 were yes/no questions. Results: Four PGY6 cardiology residents, five senior internal medicine residents and eleven staff cardiologists completed the survey. Amongst those who completed the survey there was agreement that the change to the on-call responsibilities improved cardiology residents’ skills, accountability and preparedness to practice. All groups felt the changes were useful for the cardiology training program. There was mild negative effect of perceived accountability by the internal medicine residents. Conclusion: Overall the change in call structure led to improved perceived preparedness to practice amongst the cardiology residents and addressed a gap in the Transition to Practice phase of CBD training. This study provides some evidence to the potential benefit of CBD and specifically in the benefits towards transitioning to practice.
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 | 0.012 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".