MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332513683 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3182413bc5

Restricting resident work hours

2012· review· en· W2332513683 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWork hoursPanacea (medicine)Work (physics)MEDLINEPatient safetyOccupational safety and healthSleep deprivationFamily medicineMedical emergencyHealth careAlternative medicinePsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Inadequate sleep and long work hours are long-standing traditions in the medical profession, and work schedules are especially intense in resident physicians. However, it has been increasingly recognized that the extreme hours commonly worked by residents may have substantial occupational and patient safety consequences. Largely because of these concerns, new regulations related to resident work hours came into effect July 2011, in the United States. Residents in their first year of training are now restricted to a maximum shift length of 16 hrs, with residents in subsequent years restricted to a maximum of 24 hrs. The purpose of this review is to summarize the literature regarding resident work hours in the intensive care unit, focusing on the potential positive and negative impacts of work hour limits. DATA SOURCES: The authors electronically searched MEDLINE, manually searched reference lists from retrieved articles, and reviewed their own personal databases for articles relevant to resident work hour limits. METHODS AND MAIN RESULTS: To function well, humans, including physicians, require adequate sleep. Resident work hour limits will likely reduce the incidence of fatigue-related medical errors and improve resident safety and quality of life. However, a reduction in work hours may not represent the panacea for patient safety given the potential for increased errors because of discontinuity. Furthermore, there may be other substantial negative impacts, including reduced clinical exposure, erosion of professionalism, and inadequate preparation for independent practice. Costs of implementation are likely to be substantial. CONCLUSION: Currently, there is fairly limited evidence available, and a more in-depth understanding of this complex topic is required to design a residency experience that will provide the next generation of physicians the best compromise between education, experience, and quality patient care. In the end, the primary goal of the postgraduate medical education system must be to ensure the creation of healthy physicians who can provide excellent clinical care in this complex interdisciplinary medical industry and who will have long fulfilling careers providing this outstanding care to their patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it