Dear Program Directors: There Are Numerous Entrustable Professional Activities on a Burns Rotation!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Burn care has long been an integral part of the scope of plastic surgery, but the time allocated to exposure for plastic surgery residents is under threat due to the range of sub-specialities competing for their time. As part of the Competence by Design approach to plastic surgical training, residents are provided with a list of 52 “Entrustable professional activities’ (EPA's) to ensure that core skills and knowledge are acquired. Methods: This survey, distributed via email using a link to Survey Monkey TM , sought to determine which EPA's were available for completion by plastic surgeons in training during the burn rotation at a major academic burn centre in Canada. Via investigator consensus, 26 of the 52 EPA's were included for assessment; the remaining 26 were not regarded as relevant to the burn centre rotation and therefore better acquired elsewhere. Results: Thirty two residents who underwent a burn rotation between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2021 completed the anonymous survey. Seventeen of the 26 EPA's evaluated were judged by more than 75% of respondents as being readily amenable to completion during the burn rotation. Most of these EPA's relate to the comprehensive care of patients with acute burn injuries, the management of an in-patient plastic surgery service, and associated quality improvement processes. Residents who completed rotations less than three months in duration had less opportunity to complete a further 8 EPA's in comparison to those who had longer rotations, especially with respect to the care of patients undergoing complex wound care and burn reconstruction. Conclusions: In addition to threatening seamless service delivery at burn centres, reduced resident exposure to the burn rotation may compromise the delivery of burn care in the community. The results of this survey refute any argument that the burn service is a “low yield” rotation from an EPA acquisition perspective.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".