Analyzing supply and demand on a general internal medicine ward: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The capacity of general internal medicine (GIM) clinical teaching units has been strained by decreasing resident supply and increasing patient demand. The objective of our study was to compare the number of residents (supply) with the volume and duration of patient care activities (demand) to identify inefficiency. METHODS: Using the most recently available data from an academic teaching hospital in Toronto, Ontario, we identified each occurrence of a set of patient care activities that took place on the clinical teaching unit from 2015 to 2019. We completed a descriptive analysis of the frequencies of these activities and how the frequencies varied by hour, day, week, month and year. Patient care activities included admissions, rounds, responding to pages, meeting with patients and their families, patient transfers, discharges and responding to cardiac arrests. The estimated time to complete each task was based on the available data in our electronic medical record system and interviews with GIM physicians and trainees. To calculate resident utilization, the person-hours of patient care tasks was divided by the person-hours of resident supply. Resident utilization was computed for 3 scenarios corresponding to varying levels of resident absenteeism. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 14 581 consultations to GIM from the emergency department. Patient volumes tended to be highest during January and lowest during May and June, and highest on Monday morning and lowest on Friday night. Daily admissions to hospital from the emergency department were higher on weekdays than on weekends, and hourly admissions peaked at 8 am and between 3 pm and 1 am. Weekday resident utilization was generally highest between 8 am and 2 pm, and lowest between 1 am and 8 am. In a scenario in which all residents were present apart from those who were post-call, resident utilization generally never exceeded 100%; in scenarios in which at least 1 resident was absent owing to illness or vacation, it was common for resident utilization to approach or exceed 100%, particularly during daytime working hours. INTERPRETATION: Analyzing supply and demand on a GIM ward has allowed us to identify periods when supply and demand are not aligned and to demonstrate empirically the vulnerability of current staffing models. These data have the potential to inform and optimize scheduling on an internal medicine ward.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".