83 Pediatric Resident Perspectives on a Procedure Day Pilot Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Royal College objectives emphasize the importance of competencies in lumbar punctures (LPs) amongst pediatric trainees. While a relatively common procedure in pediatrics, studies show that skills decay over time and that trainees may experience uncertainty and variable success rates in performing LPs. Unsuccessful LPs can lead to increased treatment costs, inappropriate antibiotic use, and patient morbidity. Further, the Hematology/Oncology department at our centre has diagnostic and therapeutic LPs that are performed under procedural sedation weekly and do not always have a learner in attendance. Objectives To implement an initiative in a pediatric residency program allowing residents to sign up for these procedure days. The goals of this initiative were to provide additional opportunities in a safe, controlled, and well-supervised setting to improve LP competence and confidence amongst residents. In addition, we can use this to develop a formal procedural curriculum in our program. Design/Methods A pilot proposal was presented to all stakeholders (program leadership and hematology/oncology departments) for approval. Residents were then able to sign up for twice-weekly procedure days to enhance LP skills. Following the pilot, residents were sent a questionnaire to assess their perceptions of the initiative and skill enhancement using a 5-point Likert scale. With the second iteration of this initiative due to start in 2022, we will be using pre- and post-procedure day surveys to further assess self-reported improvement in various domains. Results A total of 14 residents signed up for 42% of eligible days (range of 1-4 days per resident). Total number of LPs ranged from 2-20 per resident over the pilot. All respondents agreed that the initiative was useful in improving their technical skills and confidence. 91% of respondents strongly agreed this pilot should continue to be implemented in the program. Conclusion This educational initiative successfully improved resident perceptions of LP skills. Residents felt they were more confident and skillful after this enhanced educational opportunity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".