The impact of 2011 duty hours requirements on family medicine residents.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to determine family medicine residents' perception of changes in education, patient care, and quality of life following implementation of the 2011 Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Common Program Requirements. METHODS: Designated institutional officials at all 682 ACGME-accredited institutions were contacted and asked to distribute an anonymous, electronic survey to all residents at each sponsoring institution. The survey was administered to 2,956 family medicine residents at 61 institutions between December 2011 and February 2012. RESULTS: A large, demographically representative sample of residents (n=928) was identified as training in family medicine. Nearly half of residents (47.4%) reported disapproval of the duty hour requirements, with less than a quarter reporting approval (24.6%). Only quality of life for interns was identified as improved by a majority of respondents (63.3%). Meanwhile, quality of life for senior residents was generally reported as worse (53.0%). Likewise, a plurality of respondents stated that both quality of resident education (43.4%) and work schedules (47.9%) were negatively impacted, while more than half (56.5%) reported that preparation for more senior roles was worse. Aspects felt to be unchanged included amount of rest (45.4%) and hours worked by residents (52.8%). Although most respondents (52.0%) felt that safety of care was unchanged, more (77.9%) reported an increase in hand-offs and no increase in the availability of supervision (72.2%). Finally, the majority of residents (68.5%) agreed that there has been a shift of junior level responsibilities to more senior residents. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that family medicine residents generally disapprove of the 2011 ACGME duty hour regulations. They report negative consequences including a shift of intern responsibility to senior residents, as well as decreased preparedness for more senior roles. Further, patient safety, availability of supervision, and quality of education seem to be unimproved or worse.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».