Improving Resident Confidence in Delivering Anticipatory Safety Guidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background During Pediatric Well Child Checks (WCCs) there are many safety anticipatory guidance topics that should be discussed (water, choking, falls, car seats, guns, sun protection, etc) (1, 2). The current busy outpatient clinic is a challenging environment to discuss all of these important topics, which also creates a difficult environment for residents to practice giving anticipatory guidance (3). Focusing on fewer topics (4) during each WCC may allow residents to more confidently discuss these topics with families. Methods In order to improve resident confidence, we designed quarter sheet handouts for WCCs ages 0-3 years old, primarily based on AAP recommendations from “Bright Futures” (5, 6). These handouts included child safety topics with age-appropriate safety anticipatory guidance. They provide residents a structure to discuss 10 safety topics at least twice in the first 3 years of routine WCCs. While these handouts are designed to be given to parents, their primary function in the study was to give residents structure and repetition to discuss anticipatory guidance of safety topics. Pediatric residents completed a pre-survey of their confidence in discussing safety anticipatory guidance, using a likert scale (1-5). Three months later, the residents completed a post-survey to re-assess their confidence. Results A total of 39 pediatric residents completed the pre-survey, and 27 completed the post-survey. Resident confidence increased from a mean of 2.90 to a mean of 3.37 on the likert scale, after using the handouts for three months. This improvement in confidence is statistically significant with a p-value of 0.016. Conclusion Providing structured handouts for residents to discuss anticipatory safety guidance topics can improve resident confidence. The ultimate goal of improving resident confidence in discussing safety topics is to educate future physicians to further prevent serious pediatric injuries. 1 Schuster, M. A., Duan, N., Regalado, M., & Klein, D. J. (2000). Anticipatory Guidance: What Information Do Parents Receive? What Information Do They Want? Archives of Pediatrics Adolescent Medicine, 154(12), 1191. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.154.12.1191 2 Wurster Ovalle, V. M., Pomerantz, W. J., & Gittelman, M. A. (2018). Severe Unintentional Injuries to Ohio Children: What We Should Be Addressing at Well-Child Visits. Clinical Pediatrics, 57(9), 1092–1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922818756350 3 Balog, E. K., Hanson, J. L., & Blaschke, G. S. (2014). Teaching the Essentials of “Well-Child Care”: Inspiring Proficiency and Passion. Pediatrics, 134(2), 206–209. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-1372 4 Barkin, S. L., Scheindlin, B., Brown, C., Ip, E., Finch, S., & Wasserman, R. C. (2005). Anticipatory Guidance Topics: Are more better? Ambulatory Pediatrics, 5(6), 372–376. https://doi.org/10.1367/a04-2131r1.1 5 American Academy of Pediatrics. (2024). Bright futures. Home. https://www.aap.org/en/practice-management/bright-futures 6 Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. (2022). Home: Sparks parent video series. Sparks Video Series. https://www.sparksvideoseries.com/
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".