Perceptions of Safety Climate and Fatigue Related to ACGME Residency Duty Hour Restrictions in Otolaryngology Residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare otolaryngology residents' perceptions of safety climate with respect to duty hour compliance and self-perceived fatigue. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Forty-one otolaryngology residencies distributed across the United States. METHODS: A national sample of otolaryngology residents was surveyed electronically in 2019. The survey included demographic details, on-call descriptors, an 18-point Safety Climate Survey (SCS) modified to measure perceptions of program attitudes and practices around resident duty hour compliance, and the 33-point Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ). RESULTS: Of 397 surveyed residents, 205 (51.6%) responded. The mean modified SCS score was 11.29 out of 18 (95% CI, 10.76-11.81). Respondents were most likely to disagree with "Residents are told when they are at risk of working beyond ACGME [Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education] duty hour restrictions," where 100 (48.8%) disagreed or strongly disagreed. The mean CFQ score was 15.99 of 33 (95% CI, 15.17-16.81). As the modified SCS score improved, CFQ scores decreased, indicating an inverse relationship between duty hour safety climate and fatigue. Having a protected postcall day off and having the program director, chief resident, or senior resident decide that a resident should take a postcall day off were all associated with higher modified SCS scores. CONCLUSION: Otolaryngology residents perceived a safety climate that is suboptimal with regard to duty hour restriction issues. Additionally, an inverse relationship between fatigue and modified SCS scores suggests that fatigue among residents may be lower in programs where residents perceive that ACGME duty hour compliance is more important.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".