Empowering Tomorrow's Trainers: Engaging Senior Pediatric Residents as Co-Developers of OSCEs for Junior Peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Implementing Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) as formative educational activities significantly affects postgraduate trainees but could involve challenges to human and financial resources. This study explored senior pediatric residents' experiences in developing and conducting OSCE stations for their junior peers to elucidate the reciprocal benefits of involving senior residents in this educational partnership. Design and methods: This qualitative study employed a thematic analysis approach in training senior residents to develop and administer OSCEs following adequate training and supervision. After the OSCE implementation, residents reflected on their experiences. In-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide with the 19 senior pediatric residents who had completed the study. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed using a descriptive method, and thematic analysis of the data was performed using NVivo software. Results: Thematic analysis revealed four interrelated themes: 1) the development of OSCE stations, 2) their conduction, 3) self-reflection, and 4) the Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialties (CanMEDS) roles. Senior residents described the experience as novel and valuable, significantly enhancing their knowledge, skills, and attitudes. They recognized the benefits of teamwork, teaching skills, and increased confidence across various domains. The activities are aligned with the CanMEDS framework, contributing to their development as medical experts. Conclusion: This study highlights how and when senior residents empowered as partners in OSCE design can enhance their development and residency programs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".