The impact of transitioning from a 24-hour to a 16-hour call model amongst a cohort of Canadian anesthesia residents at McMaster University – a survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
David Sussman, James E Paul Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to assess anesthesia residents' opinions and perceptions on wellness/burnout, fatigue, education, and patient safety after the initiation of a reduced call model (16-hour call). Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted at three time points during the 2013–2014 academic year. A web-based questionnaire consisting of 23 questions was electronically distributed to all anesthesia residents from postgraduate years (PGY) 1 to 5 who were part of the active call roster (n=84) at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Descriptive summaries were calculated, counts and percentages were used for categorical variables, and answers to open text questions were reviewed for themes. Results: A response rate of 67% was obtained for this study. A majority of anesthesia residents (65%) approved of 16-hour call, felt that their overall quality of life as a senior resident (PGY3 or greater) or junior resident (PGY2 and below) had improved (73% and 55%, respectively), and reported overall feeling less fatigued. Most respondents indicated that the quality of education remained unchanged (47%), or had improved (31%). And most felt better prepared for the royal college exam (52%). Most felt patient safety had improved or was unchanged (both 48%). Conclusion: The study demonstrates that 16-hour call improved resident wellness, reduced burnout and fostered an environment where residents are less fatigued and more satisfied with their educational experience promoting an environment of patient safety. Overall, the anesthesia residency group demonstrated that not only is 16-hour call preferred but beneficial. Keywords: resident wellness, reduced call model, duty hours, patient safety, cohort study, 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".