ArticleAEM education and training2025
From Assistance to Autonomy: Evaluating Procedural Competency in Pediatric Emergency Medicine.
Article in AEM education and training, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From Assistance to Autonomy: Evaluating Procedural Competency in Pediatric Emergency Medicine.AEM education and training · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians require expertise in numerous procedural skills to manage emergencies in children. Fellows require hands-on experience, expert supervision, and standardized feedback to build procedural competency. Our objective was to develop and gather validity evidence for an evaluation tool to assess PEM fellows' ability to perform procedures. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of PEM fellows' procedural performance within a children's hospital system. Faculty evaluated fellows using a one-item, five-point entrustment/level of supervision scale. We focused on three frequently performed procedures: laceration repair, intubation, and procedural sedation. To assess changes in supervision scores by training year, we used a mixed-effects binary logistic regression model with scores ≥ 4 as the threshold. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and Results: Data from 38 fellows and 137 supervising faculty evaluations were included. Compared to first-year fellows, second-year fellows were significantly more likely to receive higher scores (aOR = 4.95; 95% CI 3.78-6.47) and third-year fellows even more so (aOR = 10.15; 95% CI 6.71-15.35). Intra-rater reliability showed moderate to very strong correlation ( Conclusion: A supervision-based evaluation tool demonstrated strong intra-rater reliability and captured increasing procedural competency among PEM fellows, as evidenced by progressively higher entrustment scores with increasing years in training. This tool may support standardized assessment and meaningful feedback throughout fellowship training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.