Resident duty hours in Canada: a survey and national statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physicians in general, and residents in particular, are adapting to duty schedules in which they have fewer continuous work hours; however, there are no Canadian guidelines on duty hours restrictions. To better inform resident duty hour policy in Canada, we set out to prepare a set of recommendations that would draw upon evidence reported in the literature and reflect the experiences of resident members of the Canadian Association of Internes and Residents (CAIR). A survey was prepared and distributed electronically to all resident members of CAIR. A total of 1796 eligible residents participated in the survey. Of those who responded, 38% (601) reported that they felt they could safely provide care for up to 16 continuous hours, and 20% (315) said that 12 continuous hours was the maximum period during which they could safely provide care (n=1592). Eighty-two percent (1316) reported their perception that the quality of care they had provided suffered because of the number of consecutive hours worked (n=1598). Only 52% (830) had received training in handover (n=1594); those who had received such training reported that it was commonly provided through informal modelling. On the basis of these data and the existing literature, CAIR recommends that resident duty hours be managed in a way that does not endanger the health of residents or patients; does not impair education; is flexible; and does not violate ethical or legal standards. Further, residents should be formally trained in handover skills and alternative duty hour models.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".