Resident Training in the Psychiatric Emergency Service: Duty Hours Tell Only Part of the Story
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychiatry residents in North America are generally required to work on-call on the psychiatric emergency service (PES) during training. Resident discontent with the long hours, onerous case loads, and lack of on-call teaching has been reported as a barrier to PES training. Given that the PES is a longitudinal and important experience, we sought to develop a better understanding of this service from the resident perspective and identify factors that affect residents as they work and train in this area. METHODS: In this grounded theory qualitative study, we collected data from focus groups with psychiatry residents. We analyzed data according to grounded theory methodology to develop an enhanced understanding of the resident experience on the PES. RESULTS: THREE MAJOR THEMES EMERGED FROM DATA ANALYSIS: (1) challenges residents face in the PES are complex and attributable to more than simply long duty hours, (2) the PES offers unique learning opportunities for residents, and (3) resident satisfaction with the PES depends on a good relationship with the team. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights important topics for any residency programs that require residents to work on a PES team. Although much attention has been paid to addressing challenges inherent to the on-call experience, such as limiting the amount of on-call hours and call frequency, equal attention should be paid to team dynamics. Like prior work on physician contentment and multidisciplinary team functioning, our study found that physicians will tolerate stressful workplace factors, so long as there is a supportive and healthy team dynamic. It is important for program directors to identify problems with team dynamics in the PES in light of their potential impact on residents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".