Time is of the essence: an observational time-motion study of internal medicine residents while they are on duty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of changes to resident physician duty hours need to be measureable. This time-motion study was done to record internal medicine residents' workflow while on duty and to determine the feasibility of capturing detailed data using a mobile electronic tool. METHODS: . RESULTS: A total of 17,714 events were recorded, encompassing 516 hours of observation. Time was apportioned in the following categories: Direct Patient Care (22%), Communication (19%), Personal tasks (15%), Documentation (14%), Education (13%), Indirect care (11%), Transit (6%), Administration (0.6%), and Non-physician tasks (0.4%). Nineteen percent of the education time was spent in self-directed learning activities. Only 9% of the total on duty time was spent in the presence of patients. Sixty-five percent of communication time was devoted to information transfer. A total of 968 interruptions were recorded which took on average 93.5 seconds each to service. CONCLUSION: Detailed recording of residents' workflow is feasible and can now lead to the measurement of the effects of future changes to residency training. Education activities accounted for 13% of on-duty time.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".