Strengthening the Chain: A Continuing Medical Education Program for Test Results Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA)'s Commitment to Change in Test-Results Follow-Up (CTC-TRFU) program aims to provide physicians with resources to enhance their test results follow-up systems for improved patient safety. Framed around the Transtheoretical Model, the program involves a 6-month multimodal educational intervention involving individual and group coaching sessions, action planning, and reflection surveys. METHODS: This study evaluates the CTC-TRFU program's impact by analyzing survey responses and course documents, focusing on three main outcomes: physicians' perceived barriers and challenges, changes in their confidence and commitment, and implemented practice changes with perceived impact on patient safety. Participants were Canadian physicians who enrolled through the CMPA's open-access registration, with a particular emphasis on those facing challenges in test result follow-up. RESULTS: One hundred two physicians have enrolled in the program. Of these physicians, 34 (33.3%) have successfully completed the program and 28 (27.5%) are actively enrolled. Among the 34 physicians who successfully completed the program, an overwhelming majority of 97.1% (n = 33) expressed their belief that the improvements made to their test follow-up system significantly enhance patient safety within their practice. We observed a significant increase in confidence in the robustness of the physician's follow-up system from program registration to completion ( P < .001). Physicians reported catching specific missed test results (55.9%, n = 19), including various laboratory reports and diagnostic imaging like abnormal mammograms or missing MRI/CT results. DISCUSSION: Physicians who participated in the CTC-TRFU program reported meaningful practice changes, which we believe underscores the value of comprehensive, longitudinal continuing patient safety CPD initiatives. These findings indicate the potential for future studies to explore the long-term impact of similar programs and their scalability.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".