The fatigue paradox: Team perceptions of physician fatigue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Ongoing calls to implement fatigue risk management in residency education assume a shared understanding of physician fatigue as a workplace hazard, yet we lack empirical evidence that all health care team members maintain this assumption. Thus, this study seeks to explore how health care team members understand the role of physician fatigue in an effort to inform the implementation of fatigue risk management in residency training and medical practice. METHODS: This study uses constructivist grounded theory to explore perceptions of workplace fatigue and its impact on clinical practice. We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with physicians, nurses and senior residents across four hospitals in 8 different specialties for a total of 40 participants. Constant comparative analysis guided data analysis and led to the final grounded theory. RESULTS: While participants outlined multiple problematic manifestations of physician fatigue on clinical performance, they were reluctant to acknowledge any negative impact of fatigue on patient care. We refer to these contradictions as the fatigue paradox. Four key themes sustain the fatigue paradox: the indefatigable physician, blind spots, faith in safety nets and the minimisation of fatigue-related events. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that health care team members do not universally feel that physician fatigue is problematic for patient care, despite providing multiple examples to the contrary. This paradoxical understanding of fatigue likely exists because the system relies on fatigued physicians, particularly trainees, and provides few mechanisms to critically examine fatigue. Successful implementation of fatigue risk management in residency training may prove elusive if clinical supervisors are skeptical of the potentially negative impact of workplace fatigue.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".