AIMTo investigate whether adenoma and polyp detection rates (ADR and PDR, respectively) in screening colonoscopies performed in the presence of fellows differ from those performed by attending physicians alone.METHODSWe performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent a screening colonoscopy at Grady Memorial Hospital between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2015. Patients with a history of colon polyps or cancer and those with poor colon preparation or failed cecal intubation were excluded from the analysis. Associations of fellowship training level with the ADR and PDR relative to attendings alone were assessed using unconditional multivariable logistic regression. Models were adjusted for sex, age, race, and colon preparation quality.RESULTSA total of 7503 colonoscopies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean age of the study patients was 58.2 years; 63.1% were women and 88.2% were African American. The ADR was higher in the fellow participation group overall compared to that in the attending group: 34.5% vs 30.7% (P = 0.001), and for third year fellows it was 35.4% vs 30.7% (aOR = 1.23, 95%CI: 1.09-1.39). The higher ADR in the fellow participation group was evident for both the right and left side of the colon. For the PDR the corresponding figures were 44.5% vs 40.1% (P = 0.0003) and 45.7% vs 40.1% (aOR = 1.25, 95%CI: 1.12-1.41). The ADR and PDR increased with increasing fellow training level (P for trend < 0.05).CONCLUSIONThere is a stepwise increase in ADR and PDR across the years of gastroenterology training. Fellow participation is associated with higher adenoma and polyp detection.

No abstract

The implementation of teaching performance assessments has prompted a range of concerns. Some educators question whether these assessments provide information beyond what university supervisors gain through their formative evaluations and classroom observations of candidates. This research examines the relationship between supervisors’ predictions and candidates’ performance on a summative assessment based on a capstone teaching event, the Performance Assessment for California Teachers. The study, based on records for 337 teacher candidates over a 2-year period, specifically addresses the following questions: To what extent do university supervisors predict candidates’ total scores? On which questions and categories of the assessment do supervisors most accurately predict their candidates’ scores? Do supervisors predict scores more accurately for high- and low-performing candidates? The findings indicate that university supervisors’ perspectives did not always correspond with outcomes on the performance assessment, particularly for high and low performers.

No abstract

The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract