Comparing Leadership Skills of Senior Emergency Medicine Residents in 3-Year Versus 4-Year Programs During Simulated Pediatric Resuscitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The majority of pediatric patients in the United States (US) are evaluated and treated at general emergency departments. It is possible that discrepancies in length of emergency medicine (EM) residency training may allow for variable exposure to pediatric patients, critical resuscitations, and didactic events. The goal of this pilot study was to compare leadership skills of graduating EM residents from 3- to 4-year programs during simulated pediatric resuscitations using a previously validated leadership assessment tool, the Concise Assessment of Leader Management (CALM). METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, simulation-based cohort pilot study that included graduating 3 rd - and 4 th -year EM resident physicians from 6 EM residency programs. We measured leadership performance across 3 simulated pediatric resuscitations (sepsis, seizure, cardiac arrest) using the CALM tool and compared leadership scores between the 3 rd - and 4 th -year resident cohorts. We also correlated leadership to self-efficacy scores. RESULTS: Data was analyzed for 47 participating residents (24 3 rd -year residents and 23 4 th -year residents). Out of a total possible CALM score of 66, residents from 3-year programs scored 45.2 [SD ± 5.2], 46.8 [SD ± 5.0], and 46.6 [SD ± 4.7], whereas residents from 4-year programs scored 45.5 [SD ± 5.2], 46.4 [SD ± 5.0], and 48.2 [SD ± 4.3] during the sepsis, seizure, and cardiac arrest cases, respectively. The mean leadership score across all 3 cases for the 3-year cohort was 46.2 [SD ± 4.8] versus 46.7 [SD ± 4.5] ( P = 0.715) for the 4-year cohort. CONCLUSIONS: These data show feasibility for a larger cohort project and, while not statistically significant, suggest no difference in leadership skills between 3 rd - and 4 th -year EM residents in our study cohort. This pilot study provides the basis of future work that will assess a larger multicenter cohort with the hope to obtain a more generalizable dataset.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".