Including patients and caregivers in assessment in the pediatric competence by design curriculum: A national consensus study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although evidence supports diverse assessment strategies, including patient/caregiver involvement in Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME), few residency programs formally include patients/caregivers in assessment. We aimed to determine the milestones for which patient/caregiver inclusion would be valuable in the Canadian Pediatric Competence By Design (CBD) curriculum. Program directors from 17 Canadian pediatric residency programs were invited to participate in a Delphi study. This Delphi included 209 milestones selected by the study team from the 320 milestones of the draft pediatric CBD curriculum available at the time of the study. In round 1, 16 participants representing 13 institutions rated the value of including patients/caregivers in the assessment of each milestone using a 4-point scale. We obtained consensus for 150 milestones, leaving 59 for re-exposure. In round 2, 14/16 participants rated remaining items without consensus. Overall, 67 milestones met consensus for ‘valuable,’ of which 11 met consensus for ‘extremely valuable.’ The majority of these milestones related to communication skills. Patient/caregiver assessment is valuable for 21% of milestones in the draft pediatric CBD curriculum, predominantly those relating to communication skills. This confirms the perceived importance of patient/caregiver assessment of trainees in CBME curricula; formal inclusion may be considered. Future directions could include exploring patients/caregivers’ perspectives of their roles in assessment in CBD.
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 | 0.169 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".