Resident Duty Hours: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residents are physicians undertaking further training to become independently licensed practitioners. Historically, resident duty hour periods were long and intense. The goal was to maximize learning through high patient volume and to teach doctors how to take responsibility. Recently, concerns over patient and resident safety have led to restricted trainee work hours. The putative justification is to improve resident education, resident well-being, and patient care. In light of this recent shift in the medical culture, resident duty hours have become a controversial topic. Restricted duty hours take many forms. In the United States, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandated junior residents work no longer than 16 consecutive hours, while senior residents could work up to 26 hours. 1 In Canada, no nationwide mandate exists and the issue falls within provincial jurisdiction. In Ontario, under the Professional Association of Residents of Ontario agreement, call-periods are no more than 26 consecutive hours in-house, no more than one in four nights in-house, or no more than one in three nights of home-call. After a 2011 Quebec court ruling, resident duty hours were restricted to 16 consecutive hours in that province. This resulted from the court concluding that traditional hours violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Regardless, the Quebec ruling prompted other Canadian programs to further reduce resident duty hours and consecutive hours on-call. To better understand this complex issue, the following review discusses resident safety, resident performance, resident education, and patient safety. Our goal is to present a balanced, evidence-based discussion, addressing both patient safety and resident fatigue management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".