Hospital medicine in the internal medicine clerkship: Results from a national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospital medicine is growing rapidly. This changing inpatient work force has had consequences on medical education, with an increasing hospitalist presence in resident and student training. Initially met with apprehension, there is growing literature to suggest that hospitalists are perceived to be more effective clinical teachers than non-hospitalists. However, the extent to which hospitalists are involved in teaching Internal Medicine (IM) to medical students is not known. METHODS: In order to determine the role of hospitalists in medical student education within the United States and Canada, we queried clerkship directors in Internal Medicine as part of the 2010 annual Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) survey. In June 2010, CDIM surveyed its North American institutional members, which represent 110 of 143 Departments of Medicine in the US and Canada. RESULTS: Eight-two of 107 departments responded to the survey (77%). Seventy-five (91%) indicated that hospitalists served as teaching attendings at their teaching hospital. In twenty-two (27%) IM departments, 75% to 100% of students rotate with a hospitalist during their IM clerkships. Thirty-three (42%) departments report that students are directly supervised by in-house hospitalists during their nighttime call requirements. Sixty-six (81%) indicated that academic hospitalists hold educational administrative positions. Hospitalists are significantly less likely to have additional clinical commitment as compared to non-hospitalist teaching attendings (16% vs 53%, (χ 21df = 33.1; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalists are involved in medical student education in the large majority of Departments of Internal Medicine throughout the US and Canada, reflecting the growth of hospital medicine nationally.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".