Resident duty hours: Families’ knowledge and perceptions in the paediatric intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Resident duty hours remain a controversial topic in the literature. Competing interests include patient safety, resident education, and resident well-being. No studies, however, have sought family members' perspectives on duty hours in the paediatric context. This study aimed to explore family members' knowledge of trainee duty hours, and their perspectives on the balance between shift duration and hand-off frequency. METHODS: We surveyed family members of patients admitted ≥ 24 hours in the paediatric intensive care unit at an academic center. We simultaneously collected daily logs of hours worked by trainees. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey responses and trainee duty hours. RESULTS: One-hundred and one family members responded (75%). Respondents demonstrated knowledge of trainees working long duty hours but reported lower averages than the trainee logs (55 versus 66 hours per week and 16 versus 24 hours per shift). Elements related to both potential trainee fatigue and hand-offs raised concern in more than half of respondents. When asked to choose between a familiar trainee working a prolonged shift, or an unfamiliar trainee at the start of their shift, respondents were divided (52% versus 48%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Family members of critically ill paediatric patients are aware that trainees provide patient care while working long duty hours with minimal sleep. Despite this awareness, long shifts retain value with some families, possibly due to continuity. Changes to duty hours and hand-off frequency may pose an unrealized harm on family-centered care, as well as patient-provider relationships, and further study is warranted.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".