“Multivariate analysis of the impact of sleep and working hours on medical errors: a MICE approach"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The main objective of this study was to describe the relationship between working conditions, sleep and psycho-affective variables and medical errors. METHODS: This was an observational, analytical and cross-sectional study in which 661 medical residents answered questionnaires about working conditions, sleep and psycho-affective variables. Actigraphic sleep parameters and peripheral temperature circadian rhythm were measured in a subgroup of 38 subjects. Bivariate and multivariate predictors of medical errors were assessed. RESULTS: Medical residents reported working 66.2 ± 21.9 weekly hours. The longest continuous shift was of 28.4 ± 10.9 h. They reported sleeping 6.1 ± 1.6 h per day, with a sleep debt of 94 ± 129 min in workdays. A high percentage of them reported symptoms related to psycho-affective disorders. The longest continuous shift duration (OR = 1.03 [95% CI, 1.00-1.05], p = 0.01), working more than six monthly on-call shifts (OR = 1.87 [95% CI, 1.16-3.02], p = 0.01) and sleeping less than six hours per working day (OR = 1.66 [95% CI, 1.10-2.51], p = 0.02) were independently associated with self-reported medical errors. The report of medical errors was associated with an increase in the percentage of diurnal sleep (2.2% [95% CI, 0.1-4.3] vs 14.5% [95% CI, 5.9-23.0]; p = 0.01) in the actigraphic recording. CONCLUSIONS: Medical residents have a high working hour load that affect their sleep opportunities, circadian rhythms and psycho-affective health, which are also related to the report of medical errors. These results highlight the importance of implementing multidimensional strategies to improve medical trainees' sleep and wellbeing, increasing in turn their own and patients' safety.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".