“The Benefits Make Up for Whatever Is Lost”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A new internal medicine call structure was implemented at two teaching hospitals at the University of Toronto, Canada, in 2009, motivated by patient safety concerns, new duty hours regulations, and dissatisfaction among attending physicians. This study aimed to determine attendings', residents', and students' experiences with the new structure and to look carefully for unintended consequences. METHOD: Between June and August 2009, the authors conducted an in-depth qualitative study using level-specific focus groups of attending physicians, residents, and medical students (n=28) with experience of both the old and new call systems. Discussions were analyzed using grounded theory. RESULTS: Analysis revealed six themes (physician, manager, learner, teacher, workload, and "teamness") as well as the overarching theme of accountability. Although participants perceived the new system as better for patient care, there were several trade-offs. For example, workload was more predictable and equitable but less flexible, and senior residents reported less personal continuity for patients but increased continuity of care on the team level. Teaching and learning were negatively affected. Despite the negative effects, participants perceived that overall accountability improved on many levels, and participants felt the trade-offs were worth the perceived benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Residents were flexible and altruistic, accepting trade-offs in their own experiences in favor of patient care. Education was negatively affected. This study highlights the importance of carefully studying changes to look for anticipated and unanticipated consequences.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".