A87 A SURVEY-BASED ASSESSMENT OF ENDOSCOPY CURRICULUM AND EDUCATION IN CANADIAN TRAINING PROGRAMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Endoscopic training within Canada occurs in programs accredited by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC). Beyond national accreditation, there are no standardized endoscopic training curriculums and each program is responsible for ensuring its trainees achieve competency. There is debate in the literature regarding the minimum number of endoscopic procedures and the role of objective assessment tools in the assessment of trainee competence with no specific recommendations for these by the RCPSC. Aims The goal of our study was to characterize endoscopic training curriculums within Canadian training programs while determining the usage and perceived importance of procedure volume tracking and objective assessment tools. Methods Online surveys were sent to program directors (PD) and trainees within Adult Gastroenterology, Pediatric Gastroenterology, General Surgery and Colorectal Surgery programs within Canada. Surveys contained questions meant to characterize endoscopy training curriculums and perceived effectiveness of the curriculum while highlighting the factors important for feedback and competency assessment. Results Survey responses were obtained from 20 PDs and 83 trainees. Of all programs surveyed 53% (44/83) of trainees reported that they had a formal endoscopy curriculum compared with 75% (15/20) of PDs. PDs assessed endoscopic competence predominantly by EPAs (95%) and verbal feedback (65%) with minimal usage of objective tools (30%). Trainees reported fewer objective tool usage at 2.4% (2/83). When assessed on a 5-point Likert scale, both PDs and trainees felt that verbal feedback was the most important for assessment of competence (3.58 and 4.39 respectively). Seventy-seven percent of trainees report using a procedure log and when asked about procedure volume 37% of trainees expected to complete ampersand:003C250 colonoscopies by the end of their training. Eighty-three percent of PDs felt that all their trainees achieved endoscopic competency with only 50% of adult GI PDs reporting the same. Most PDs and trainees felt that national recommendations for objective tool usage (65% and 57% respectively) and minimum procedure volume (65% and 63% respectively) would be helpful to standardize endoscopic training. Additional results are reported in Figure 1. Conclusions Most training programs reported a standardized curriculum with a majority of trainees tracking their procedure volume, but a minority of programs incorporated objective tools. A significant portion of trainees expected to complete ampersand:003C250 colonoscopies by the end of their training and not all PDs felt that all of their trainees reach endoscopic competence. The majority of trainees and PDs felt national recommendations for procedure tracking and objective tools would be helpful, suggesting the need for more formalized endoscopic curriculums in Canada. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".