Dataset Information

Benchmarking a Canadian Anesthesiology Resident Research Program against national norms using a logic model framework: a quality improvement study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Canadian specialty training programs are expected to deliver curriculum content and assess competencies related to the CanMEDS Scholar role. We evaluated our residency research program and benchmarked it against national norms for quality improvement purposes.

Methods

In 2021 we reviewed departmental curriculum documents and surveyed current and recently graduated residents. We applied a logic model framework to assess if our program's inputs, activities, and outputs addressed the relevant CanMeds Scholar competencies. We then descriptively benchmarked our results against a 2021 environmental scan of Canadian anesthesiology resident research programs.

Results

Local program content was successfully mapped to competencies. The local survey response rate was 40/55 (73%). In benchmarking, our program excelled in providing milestone-related assessments, research funding, administrative, supervisory, and methodologic support, and requiring a literature review, proposal presentation, and local abstract submission as output. Acceptable activities to meet research requirements vary greatly among programs. Balancing competing clinical and research responsibilities was a frequently reported challenge.

Conclusions

The logic model framework was easily applied and demonstrated our program benchmarked well against national norms. National level dialogue is needed to develop specific, consistent scholar role activities and competency assessments to bridge the gap between expected outcome standards and education practice.

SUBMITTER: Barbour-Tuck E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10042791 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Benchmarking a Canadian Anesthesiology Resident Research Program against national norms using a logic model framework: a quality improvement study.

Barbour-Tuck Erin E Mutter Thomas T O'Brien Jennifer M JM Girling Linda L Choo Eugene E Gamble Jonathan J

Canadian medical education journal 20230321 1

<h4>Background</h4>Canadian specialty training programs are expected to deliver curriculum content and assess competencies related to the CanMEDS Scholar role. We evaluated our residency research program and benchmarked it against national norms for quality improvement purposes.<h4>Methods</h4>In 2021 we reviewed departmental curriculum documents and surveyed current and recently graduated residents. We applied a logic model framework to assess if our program's inputs, activities, and outputs ad ...[more]

PMID: 36998486

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe current program-centric algorithm for the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) primarily uses the program's ranking of students to determine a match. Concerns that the existing algorithm favors programs over students, recent findings that the program's ranking of applicants is not associated with resident performance, and disruptions of existing screening methods and metrics have prompted reevaluation of the current algorithm relative to a student-centric algorithm, in which student ranking of programs is primary and program ranking of students is secondary.ObjectiveTo compare program-centric and student-centric algorithms for the NRMP participants.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used randomized computer-generated data reflecting the NRMP match for 2018, 2019, and 2020, capturing more than 50 000 students and more than 4000 programs in 23 specialties, to compare the 2 algorithms.ExposuresThe same simulated students, programs, and rankings were exposed to the 2 algorithms, running 2300 simulations in the overall analysis and 1000 simulations in each of 23 specialties.Main outcomes and measuresThe percentage of students who did and did not match, the percentage of students who matched to their top-ranked and top-5-ranked programs, and the program's rank of the last student matched per position were examined.ResultsThe 2 algorithms were not different in percentage of students matched overall (eg, for 2020, program-centric: 59% [95% CI, 57%-61%]; student-centric: 58% [95% CI, 56%-60%]; P = .73). The student-centric algorithm, relative to the program-centric algorithm, matched a significantly higher percentage of students to their first-ranked program (eg, for 2020, 50% [95% CI, 48%-52%] vs 14% [95% CI, 13%-15%]; P < .001) and to their top-5-ranked programs (eg, for 2020, 60% [95% CI, 58%-62%] vs 46% [95% CI, 44%-48%]; P < .001). However, the last position was filled with students who had lower program rankings in the student-centric algorithm vs the program-centric algorithm (2 [95% CI, 1-2] vs 8 [95% CI, 6-10]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, the 2 algorithms were not different in the percentage of students matched overall. However, the student-centric algorithm matched a significantly higher percentage of students to their preferred programs. The program-centric algorithm was associated with a lower program's last matched student rank. Further research is needed on the algorithms' associations with cost and time demands in the match, postmatch resident and program performance, and fit with a changing environment.

Dataset Information

Benchmarking a Canadian Anesthesiology Resident Research Program against national norms using a logic model framework: a quality improvement study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Benchmarking a Canadian Anesthesiology Resident Research Program against national norms using a logic model framework: a quality improvement study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets