MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093128101 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000003803

Life on Call: Perspectives of Junior and Senior Internal Medicine Residents

2020· article· en· W3093128101 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeremy Cygler, Andrea Page, Shiphra Ginsburg

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyFocus groupEmpathyPerspective (graphical)DutyPsychologyMedicineGrounded theoryMedical educationFamily medicineQualitative researchSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Models of daytime and nighttime on-call responsibilities for residents vary across internal medicine training programs, but there are few data regarding residents' perceptions of their on-call experiences. The authors sought to understand what residents perceive as the benefits and detriments of 24-hour, in-house call, a perspective instrumental to informing change. METHOD: The authors conducted in-depth individual interviews and focus groups between December 2018 and March 2019 with 17 internal medicine residents from postgraduate years 1, 2, and 3 at the University of Toronto about their on-call experiences. Using constructivist grounded theory, the authors developed a framework to understand the residents' perceived benefits and drawbacks of 24-hour in-house call. RESULTS: Residents' experiences on call were grouped into 7 themes regarding negative and positive aspects of call. Participants reported multidimensional fatigue related to call, including decision fatigue, emotional fragility and lability, and loss of empathy, and also reported that call adversely affected their personal lives. Residents expressed conflicting opinions as to whether prolonged duty hours affected patient outcomes. In contrast, residents also expressed benefits to call, including that overnight call led to increased autonomy and decision-making skills and provided preparation for future careers as independent internists. They described developing camaraderie and a sense of belonging to a team with coresidents overnight. Lastly, residents described occupying different roles during regular duty hours and while on call-daytime roles revolved around follow-up of previously admitted patients and administrative tasks, while overnight duties centered on initial workup and medical stabilization of referred patients. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the nuanced phenomenon of being on call from the perspective of those who live through it is a critical step in creating evidence-based educational policies. New call models should emphasize resident autonomy and decision making and should include a consideration of residents' perceived differences between daytime and on-call roles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207