The Perceived Effect of Duty Hour Restrictions on Learning Opportunities in the Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many countries have reduced resident duty hours in an effort to promote patient safety and enhance resident quality of life. There are concerns that reducing duty hours may impact residents' learning opportunities. OBJECTIVES: We (1) evaluated residents' perceptions of their current learning opportunities in a context of reduced duty hours, and (2) explored the perceived change in resident learning opportunities after call length was reduced from 24 continuous hours to 16 hours. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional online survey of 240 first-, second-, and third-year residents rotating through 3 McGill University-affiliated intensive care units (ICUs) in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013. The survey investigated residents' perceptions of learning opportunities in both the 24-hour and 16-hour systems. RESULTS: Of 240 residents, 168 (70%) completed the survey. Of these residents, 63 (38%) had been exposed to both 24-hour and 16-hour call schedules. The majority of respondents (83%) reported that didactic teaching sessions held by ICU staff physicians were useful. However, of the residents trained in both approaches to overnight call, 44% reported a reduction in learner attendance at didactic teaching sessions, 48% reported a reduction in attendance at midday hospital rounds, and 40% reported a perceived reduction in self-directed reading after the implementation of the new call schedule. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of residents perceived a reduction in the attendance of instructor-directed and self-directed reading after the implementation of a 16-hour call schedule in the ICU.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".