Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20077049›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2010

Supervising the supervisors--procedural training and supervision in internal medicine residency.

Michelle Mourad, Jeffrey Kohlwes, Judith Maselli, MERN Group, Andrew D Auerbach

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Teaching Procedural Skills: Integrating Educational Theory Into Practice.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. POCUS in Internal Medicine Curriculum: Quest forJournal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michelle MouradDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA. Michelle.Mourad@ucsf.edu
Jeffrey Kohlwes
Judith Maselli
MERN Group
Andrew D Auerbach
University of California, San Francisco · USSan Francisco General Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAt teaching hospitals, bedside procedures (paracentesis, thoracentesis, lumbar puncture, arthrocentesis and central venous catheter insertion) are performed by junior residents and supervised by senior peers. Residents' perceptions about supervision or how often peer supervision produces unsafe clinical situations are unknown.

objectiveTo examine the experience and practice patterns of residents performing bedside procedures. DESIGN AND

participantsCross-sectional e-mail survey of 653 internal medicine (IM) residents at seven California teaching hospitals. MEASUREMENTS: Surveys asked questions in three areas: (1) resident experience performing procedures: numbers of procedures performed and whether they received other (e.g., simulator) training; (2) resident comfort performing and supervising procedures; (3) resident reports of their current level of supervision doing procedures, experience with complications as well as perceptions of factors that may have contributed to complications.

resultsThree hundred sixty-seven (56%) of the residents responded. Most PGY1 residents had performed fewer than five of any of the procedures, but most PGY-3 residents had performed at least ten by the end of their training. Resident comfort for each procedure increased with the number of procedures performed (p < 0.001). Although residents reported that peer supervision happened often, they also reported high rates of supervising a procedure before feeling comfortable with proper technique. The majority of residents (64%) reported at least one complication and did not feel supervision would have prevented complications, even though many reported complications represented technique- or preparation-related problems.

conclusionsResidents report low levels of comfort and experience with procedures, and frequently report supervising prior to feeling comfortable. Our findings suggest a need to examine best practices for procedural supervision of trainees.

Indexed as

CaliforniaCatheterization, Central VenousConfidence IntervalsCross-Sectional StudiesCurriculumEducation, Medical, GraduateFaculty, MedicalFemaleHealth Care SurveysHospitals, TeachingHumansInternal MedicineInternship and ResidencyLogistic ModelsMaleMultivariate Analysis

Identifiers

PMID20077049
PMCPMC2842555
OpenAlexW2111897418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.