Canadian Plastic Surgery Resident Work Hour Restrictions: Practices and Perceptions of Residents and Program Directors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of resident work hour restrictions on training and patient care remains a highly controversial topic, and to date, there lacks a formal assessment as it pertains to Canadian plastic surgery residents. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the work hour profile of Canadian plastic surgery residents and assess the perspectives of residents and program directors regarding work hour restrictions related to surgical competency, resident wellness, and patient safety. METHODS: An anonymous online survey developed by the authors was sent to all Canadian plastic surgery residents and program directors. Basic summary statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Eighty (53%) residents and 10 (77%) program directors responded. Residents reported working an average of 73 hours in hospital per week with 8 call shifts per month and sleep 4.7 hours/night while on call. Most residents (88%) reported averaging 0 post-call days off per month and 61% will work post-call without any sleep. The majority want the option of working post-call (63%) and oppose an 80-hour weekly maximum (77%). Surgical and medical errors attributed to post-call fatigue were self-reported by 26% and 49% of residents, respectively. Residents and program directors expressed concern about the ability to master surgical skills without working post-call. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents oppose duty hour restrictions. The reason is likely multifactorial, including the desire of residents to meet perceived expectations and to master their surgical skills while supervised. If duty hour restrictions are aggressively implemented, many respondents feel that an increased duration of training may be necessary.
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".