Education and Training / Formation et perfectionnement professionnel Sink or Night Float: University of British Columbia Radiology Residents' Experience With Overnight Call
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractPurpose: In July 2012, in response to residents’ concerns regarding the impact of the traditional 24-hour call system on their personal well-being and educational experience, the University of British Columbia Radiology residency program adopted a 12-hour night float system.This shift takes place in the context of increasing concerns, both across Canada and internationally, about resident well-being and the impactof prolonged duty hours on patient care.Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed to all 25 postgraduate years 2-5 University of British Columbia radiology residents 12months after the introduction of night float. This study sought to solicit residents’ feedback about these changes and to identify potentialfuture changes to optimize the call system.Results: The response rate was 100%; 96% of residents were in favor of continuing with night float rather than the traditional call system;72% of residents reported that their judgement was affected secondary to being on night float. Although most residents described varyingdegrees of impairment, the rate of acute discrepancies between resident preliminary and attending radiologist final reports decreased by morethan half, from 2% to less than 1%.Conclusions: The vast majority of our residents were in favor of maintaining the night float call system. Night float had a beneficial effecton the resident educational experience: by eliminating the pre-call morning and post-call day offrotation, residents gained an additional 24days per year on other clinical rotations.ResumeObjectif : En juillet 2012, dans le but de resoudre les preoccupations des etudiants concernant l’effet du systeme de garde sur appelclassique (24 heures) sur leur bien-^etre et leur exp erience de formation, le programme de residence en radiologie de la University ofBritish Columbia (UBC) a mis en place un systeme de garde de nuit de 12 heures. Ce changement s’inscrit dans un contexte d’inquietudegrandissante, tant au Canada qu’al’etranger, au sujet du bien-^etre des r esidents et de l’incidence des heures de travail prolongees sur lessoins dispenses aux patients.Methodes : Une enqu^ete anonyme a eteacheminee aux 25 residents en radiologie qui poursuivent leur deuxieme, troisieme, quatrieme oucinquieme annee de formation postdoctoralea la UBC, 12 mois apres l’entree en vigueur du systeme de garde de nuit. L’etude avait pourbut de recueillir la retroaction des residents au sujet des changements apportes et de determiner si d’autres modifications pourraienteventuellement ^etre mises en place afin d’optimiser le syst eme de garde.Resultats : L’enqu ^ete a afficheuntauxdereponse de 100 %; 96 % des residents ont dit preferer le systeme de garde de nuit ausysteme de garde classique; 72 % des residents ont indique que leurs capacites de jugement etaient moindresa la suite d’une garde denuit. Bien que la plupart des residents aient fait etat d’une diminution des capacites a divers degre, le taux de divergence marqueeentre les rapports preliminaires des residents et le rapport final du radiologiste en titre a plus que diminue de moitie, passant de 2 % amoins de 1 %.Conclusion : La grande majorite de nos residents souhaitent le maintien du systeme de garde de nuit. Le systeme de garde de nuit a influefavorablement sur l’experience de formation des residents : en eliminant le matin de conge qui precede la garde et le jour de conge qui la suit,
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".