MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360618547 · doi:10.1002/aet2.10856

Impact and effectiveness of a mandatory competency‐based simulation program for pediatric emergency medicine faculty

2023· article· en· W4360618547 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Pirie, Jabeen Fayyaz, Tania Prinicipi, Anna Kempinska, Mireille Gharib, Laura Simone, Carrie Glanfield, Catharine M. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueAEM Education and Training · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Western OntarioLondon Health Sciences CentreHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingCompetence (human resources)Pediatric emergency medicineMedicineMedical educationEmergency departmentMedical emergencyNursingEmergency medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Pediatric emergency medicine physicians struggle to maintain their critical procedural and resuscitation skills. Continuing professional development programs incorporating simulation and competency-based standards may help ensure skill maintenance. Using a logic model framework, we sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a mandatory annual competency-based medical education (CBME) simulation program. Methods: The CBME program, evaluated from 2016 to 2018, targeted procedural, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and resuscitation skills. Delivery of educational content included a flipped-classroom website, deliberate practice, mastery-based learning, and stop-pause debriefing. Participants' competence was assessed using a 5-point global rating scale (GRS; 3 = competent, 5 = mastery). Statistical process control charts were used to measure the effect of the CBME program on team performance during in situ simulations (ISS), measured using the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) scale. Faculty completed an online program evaluation survey. Results: Forty physicians and 48 registered nurses completed at least one course over 3 years (physician mean ± SD 2.2 ± 0.92). Physicians achieved competence on 430 of 442 stations (97.3%). Mean ± SD GRS scores for procedural, POCUS, and resuscitation stations were 4.34 ± 0.43, 3.96 ± 0.35, and 4.17 ± 0.27, respectively. ISS TEAM scores for "followed standards and guidelines" improved significantly. No signals of special cause variation emerged for the other 11 TEAM items, indicating skills maintenance. Physicians rated CBME training as highly valuable (mean question scores 4.15-4.85/5). Time commitment and scheduling were identified as barriers to participation. Conclusions: Our mandatory simulation-based CBME program had high completion rates and very low station failures. The program was highly rated and faculty improved or maintained their ISS performance across TEAM scale domains.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAEM Education and TrainingSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207