Prospective Evaluation of Residents On Call: Before and After Duty-Hour Reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: On July 1, 2009, in Ontario the maximum period of continuous duty that residents were permitted to work was reduced from 28 to 24 hours. We evaluated the effect of regulation on residents in 3 eras: 2 before (2005 and early 2009) and 1 after (late 2009) the duty-hour reduction. METHODS: On-call pediatric residents on pediatric medicine rotations prospectively recorded the numbers of patients (assigned and admitted) and the durations of direct patient care, documentation, staff supervision, and education attended. Sleep was measured with actigraphy. RESULTS: The 51 residents worked 180 duty periods, were assigned a median of 6 (interquartile range: 4 -12) daytime patients and 24 (interquartile range: 19-30) overnight patients. Residents reported spending means of 239 minutes providing direct patient care, 235 minutes documenting, and 243 minutes sleeping and receiving 73 minutes of staff supervision and 52 minutes of education. From early 2009 to after duty-hour reduction, residents provided 47 fewer (19.6%) minutes of direct patient care (P = .056) and received 44 fewer minutes (60.3%) of supervision (P = .0005) but spent similar times documenting, receiving education, and sleeping. In early 2009, residents provided 73 more minutes (30.5%) of direct patient care (P = .0016), spent 63 more minutes (26.8%) documenting, and slept 105 fewer minutes (43.0%) (P = .0062) than in 2005. DISCUSSION: After duty-hour reduction in 2009, we found reduced supervision and direct patient care. Comparison of the 2 periods before duty-hour reduction showed less sleep and longer patient contact in early 2009, which suggests that changes occurred without regulation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".