MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388705846 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3595449/v1

Minimum Supervision Levels required for Pediatric Cardiology Fellowship graduation by Pediatric Cardiology Fellowship Program Directors

2023· preprint· en· W4388705846 on OpenAlexaff
Ruchika Karnik, Julie S. Glickstein, Alan Schwartz, Richard Mink, Ashley E. Neal, Lowell H. Frank, Colin J. McMahon, Michael E. Kim, David Turner, Shubhika Srivast

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)SubspecialtyAccreditationMedical educationMedicineGraduate medical educationCurriculumFamily medicineCardiologyMedical physicsPsychologyPedagogyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) are “observable essential tasks expected to be performed by a physician for safe patient care in practice.” Six PC EPAs and their LOS scales were developed by medical educators in PC using a modified Delphi process and reviewed by the Subspecialty Pediatrics Investigator Network (SPIN). However, their general use in assessment for PC fellows for graduation requirements has yet to be studied. Objective To determine the minimum level of supervision (LOS) required for PC fellows to graduate and compare it with the minimum LOS expected for safe and effective practice for the 6 PC EPAs, from the perspective of PC fellowship program directors (FPD). Method All FPDs of ACGME-accredited PC fellowships were surveyed through SPIN between April 2017 and August 2017. For each of the PC EPAs, the FPDs were asked to indicate the minimum LOS expected for graduation and whether they would allow a fellow to graduate if this level was not achieved. The minimum LOS expected for a practicing pediatric cardiologist to provide safe and effective patient care. The minimum level of supervision (LOS) was defined as the LOS for which no more than 20% of FPDs would want a lower level. Results The survey response rate was 80% (47/59). The majority of the FPDs did not require a minimum LOS of 5 corresponding to unsupervised practice in any of the 6 PC EPAs at graduation. For EPAs related to imaging, arrhythmia management, and management of cardiac problems, the minimum LOS for graduation was 3, corresponding to being “trusted to perform a task with indirect supervision for most simple and a few complex cases.” For the EPAs related to interventional cardiology, heart failure pulmonary hypertension, and cardiac intensive care, the minimum LOS for graduation was 2, corresponding to being “trusted to perform a task only with direct supervision and coaching.” The minimum LOS considered necessary for safe and effective practice for all but one EPA was 3. For the EPA related to the management of cardiac problems, the minimum LOS for safe practice was 4, corresponding to being “trusted to execute tasks independently except for few complex and critical cases.” Conclusion Most PC FPDs reported they would not require fellows to achieve the highest entrustment level for any of the 6 PC EPAs for graduation. It is crucial that educational programs evolve to address these essential activities during training better and that stakeholders ensure that graduating PC fellows have adequate resources and infrastructure to continue professional development as early-career pediatric cardiologists.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.199
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→