MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400768111 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2024.07.007

Competency-Based Cardiology Training: A Simple Approach to Improve Supervisor Completion of Entrustable Professional Activities

2024· article· en· W4400768111 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Whitney Faiella, Sandila Navjot, Sarah Ramer

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie University
FundersNova Scotia Health Authority
KeywordsSupervisorSimple (philosophy)Training (meteorology)Medical educationMedicinePsychologyMedical physicsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Adult cardiology residency programs formally transitioned to Competency by Design (CBD) in July 2021. CBD was designed to establish clear learning expectations and increase opportunities for coaching; however, cited challenges include inconsistent participation by staff, and variable timelines for receiving feedback. This project was designed to implement a simple intervention to improve expiry rates and completion timelines of entrustable professional activities (EPAs). Methods EPAs triggered by cardiology residents at Dalhousie University between July 1, 2020 and February 28, 2023 were reviewed. The intervention consisted of performance reviews, including a grand rounds presentation, along with a personalized data set distributed to each staff supervisor, with individual statistics compared to group averages. Outcomes include EPAs completed per resident-months, time to completion, and percentage of expired EPAs. Results At 12 months postintervention, the percentage of expired EPAs decreased from 35.0% to 21.5% (odds ratio 0.51, CI 0.33–0.79; P = 0.03), and the time to completion decreased from 7.3 ± 5.99 days to 5.0 ± 5.78 days (difference –2.31, CI –3.55 to –1.07; P < 0.001). The number of EPAs completed per resident-months increased from 3.10 to 4.29 (rate difference 1.18; CI 0.64–1.72; P < 0.001), and the percentage of EPAs completed within the target time of 48 hours increased from 54.4% to 71.5% (OR 2.11, CI 1.27–3.50; P = 0.004). Conclusions Performance reviews in the form of a group presentation, along with the distribution of personalized data sets to supervisors, positively impacted EPA expiry rates, completion timelines, and completion rates, which helped facilitate the transition to 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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC OpenSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207