Implementation of a novel night float call system: resident satisfaction and quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compliance with Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario duty hour guidelines has been problematic at our institution. To facilitate orthopedic residents' ability to go home postcall without significant disruption of ongoing clinical activities, a novel call system was adopted at our tertiary care centre. We sought to evaluate the satisfaction and quality of life of orthopaedic residents with that system. METHODS: We administered questionnaires to on-service residents. These included the Short Form-36 questionnaire and others addressing topics including education, stress, work-related problems and miscellaneous concerns. RESULTS: Seventeen residents were surveyed: 6 who had just completed a night float rotation, and 11 who were on a regular orthopedic service rotation while the night float system was in place. Quality of life was similar between residents on the night float block and those on the standard rotation; it was also similar to age-matched Canadian normative data. Eighty-nine percent of residents agreed that the presence of the night float rotation improved their quality of life on standard rotations, and 100% felt that their education was improved on standard rotations by having the night float system in place. CONCLUSION: This call system results in improved resident quality of life and widespread overall satisfaction, and may be considered as a viable alternative to traditional call formats. Follow-up data as more residents experience the night float block will be valuable.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".