Peri-Operative Patient Safety – An Interactive Workshop for Section 3 CPD Credits Developed in Collaboration with the CMPA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexandra Beaumont,1 Jacqueline Beaumont,1 F Gigi Osler,2 Tino D Piscione,3 Adrian Gooi2 1Max Rady College of Medicine, Winnipeg, Canada; 2Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Health Sciences Centre, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; 3Canadian Medical Protective Association, Station “T”, Ottawa, CanadaCorrespondence: Adrian Gooi Email adriangooi@gmail.comBackground: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada requires physicians to collect credit in continuing professional development courses including Section 3 credits which require feedback and self-assessment. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of offering Section 3 credits in a conference setting using an interactive workshop on peri-operative patient safety developed in collaboration with the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA). Both the knowledge gained and the attitudes towards the conference were analysed.Methods: This was a pre/post-test study design. An interactive case studies workshop was implemented on medicolegal issues for patient care, before, during, and after surgery at the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery annual meeting. The workshop used small group and large interactive group educational strategies to gauge knowledge of both pre and post cases. Participants completed a questionnaire at the end of the workshop comparing their attitudes before and after the workshop.Results: There were 22 participants in the workshop. A little over half knew the requirements for Section 3 CPD credits (58%) but only 36% knew how to obtain them. The data demonstrated with 95% confidence intervals, statistically significant improvement in how participants felt about their ability to identify at-risk behaviours in surgical practice (2.10 to 2.90, 3-point Likert, p< 0.001), to analyze the impact of at-risk behaviour on patient care (1.95 to 2.65, p< 0.001), and to develop strategies to address at-risk behaviours in surgical practice and improve patient care (1.95 to 2.80, p< 0.001). One hundred percent of participants felt similar workshops should be included in future annual meetings, and 94% felt that future meetings should include more opportunities to obtain Section 3 credits.Conclusion: This study demonstrates the effectiveness of an interactive workshop in a conference setting to fulfill the need for Section 3 continuing professional development credits.Keywords: CPD, continuing professional development, CME, continuing medical education, education, otolaryngology, PS/QI, patient safety, quality improvement, peri-operative
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".