58 A hospital paediatrics education curriculum: Quality improvement for inpatient paediatric learner education on CTU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Paediatric learners experience the bulk of their inpatient medicine on the wards. While bedside teaching is invaluable, ward learning can be impacted by seasonal exposure, clinical homogeneity, and volume. Locally our learners requested more formal ward teaching to encourage dialogue around common topics perhaps not encountered on rotation. We queried whether having a database of interactive guideline-based educational experiences would minimize barriers (eg. time, resources) to providing formal inpatient learner education. Objectives We sought to enhance general paediatrics ward teaching by developing a curriculum of guideline-based interactive educational content on common inpatient paediatric topics. Design/Methods This study was conducted at a Canadian tertiary care paediatric hospital with a range of learners (MSI3, MSI4, paediatric residents (R1-R4)) over 12 months. 1) Needs Assessment: We surveyed residents, hospitalist fellows, and CTU physicians regarding a) perceived need for a curriculum, b) content (top 5 CPS guidelines and top 5 non-CPS topics), c) teaching modality, d) need for handouts, and e) curriculum structure. 2) Curriculum generation: Curriculum was developed according to needs assessment results. 3) Quality improvement: Learners were surveyed after each session with four Likert scale questions (5=strongly agree) regarding teaching quality, clinical translatability, enhanced knowledge/understanding, and improved clinical confidence. Results 1) Needs assessment: Needs assessment (N=25) unanimously supported a structured curriculum. Eleven CPS statements and twelve non-CPS guideline-based topics were identified for content. Three preferred teaching formats were highlighted, and handouts were important to 88% of respondents. The curriculum was favoured to be 50-75% standardized. 2) Curriculum generation: We developed a curriculum of 13 topics with different delivery modalities (e.g. case-based powerpoints, whiteboard talks, Jeopardy, simulation). All were guideline-based, interactive, and had fill-in-the-blank learner handouts. The curriculum was standardized with 4/6 CTU teaching sessions per block being derived from the curriculum bank, and the remainder being at educator discretion (e.g. curriculum bank, interesting case). 3) Quality improvement: Likert scales (5=strongly agree) were positive from all learners (MSI3-R4; N=52), with scores of 4.9+/-0.2 for teaching quality, translatability to practice, and improved understanding, and 4.8+/-0.3 for improved clinical confidence. Conclusion Here we present an interactive and guideline-based paediatric inpatient learner education curriculum whose development, from content to delivery modality, was directed by community needs. We are now seeking funding to prepare for national distribution (e.g. peer-review, licensure), and intend to publish on platform where the curriculum would be downloadable for use by all educators (i.e. senior residents, staff).
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".