Perceptions of 24/7 In-Hospital Intensivist Coverage on Pediatric Housestaff Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, the focus on patient safety and housestaff supervision has led to a steady increase in institutions providing 24/7 in-hospital (also known as in-house, henceforth referred to as IH) coverage by pediatric intensivists. Effects of this increased attending physician presence on education of pediatric housestaff have not been studied. We hypothesized that IH coverage would decrease perceived autonomy of housestaff and negatively affect their preparedness to be independent attending physicians on completion of training. METHODS: A secure, anonymous, Web-based survey was sent to pediatric intensivists in the United States and Canada, and pediatric critical care fellows and pediatric residents at academic centers across the United States. Questions focused on perceptions of IH coverage and housestaff educational experience. RESULTS: We report 1323 responses from 147 institutions (center response rate 74%). Although 96% of respondents stated that the PICU provides "a good educational experience," only 50% of pediatric intensivists and 67% of housestaff feel that housestaff are prepared for independent practice after training in an IH model. Compared with those training in home-call models, respondents currently working in IH models have more favorable perceptions of the effects of IH coverage on housestaff autonomy (P < .0001), supervision (P < .0001), and preparation for independent practice (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric intensivists and housestaff express concern regarding the preparation of housestaff training in a 24/7 IH attending model. An important priority for institutions using or considering a 24/7 IH attending coverage model is the balance between adequate housestaff supervision and autonomy.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it