Improving pediatric procedural skills and EPA assessments through an acute care procedural skills curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Acute procedural skill competence is expected by the end of pediatric residency training; however, the extent to which residents are actually competent is not clear. Therefore, a cross-sectional observational study was performed to examine the competency of pediatric residents in acute care procedures in emergency medicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pediatric residents underwent didactic/hands-on "Acute Procedure Day" where they performed procedures with direct supervision and received entrustable professional activity (EPA) assessments (scores from 1-5) for each attempt. Procedures included: bag-valve mask (BVM) ventilation, intubation, intraosseous (IO) line insertion, chest tube insertion, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with defibrillation. Demographic information, perceived comfort level, and EPA data were collected. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation for postgraduate year (PGY) versus EPA scores were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-six residents participated (24 PGY 1-2, and 12 PGY 3-4). Self-reported prior clinical exposure was lowest for chest tube placement (n = 3, 8.3%), followed by IOs (n = 19, 52.8%). During the sessions, residents showed the highest levels of first attempt proficiency with IO placement (EPA 4-5 in 28 residents/33 who participated) and BVM (EPA 4-5 in 27/33), and the lowest for chest tube placement (EPA 4-5 in 0/35), defibrillation (EPA 4-5 in 5/31 residents) and intubation (EPA 4-5 in 17/31). There was a strong correlation between PGY level and EPA score for intubation, but not for other skills. DISCUSSION: Entrustability in acute care skills is not achieved with current pediatrics training. Research is needed to explore learning curves for skill acquisition and their relative importance.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".