Resident duty hour modification affects perceptions in medical education, general wellness, and ability to provide patient care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resident duty hours have recently been under criticism, with concerns for resident and patient well-being. Historically, call shifts have been long, and some residency training programs have now restricted shift lengths. Data and opinions about the effects of such restrictions are conflicting. The Internal Medicine Residency Program at Dalhousie University recently moved from a traditional call structure to a day float/night float system. This study evaluated how this change in duty hours affected resident perceptions in several key domains. METHODS: Senior residents from an internal medicine training program in Canada responded to an anonymous online survey immediately before and 6 months after the implementation of duty hour reform. The survey contained questions relating to three major domains: resident wellness, ability to deliver quality health care, and medical education experience. Mean pre- and post-intervention scores were compared using the t-test for paired samples. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 27 (85 %) senior residents completed both pre- and post-reform surveys. Residents perceived significant changes in many domains with duty hour reform. These included improved general wellness, less exposure to personal harm, fewer feelings of isolation, less potential for error, improvement in clinical skills expertise, increased work efficiency, more successful teaching, increased proficiency in medical skills, more successful learning, and fewer rotation disruptions. CONCLUSIONS: Senior residents in a Canadian internal medicine training program perceived significant benefits in medical education experience, ability to deliver healthcare, and resident wellness after implementation of duty hour reform.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".