An innovative on-call system for paediatric residency programs: The alternate night float
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Night-float systems, in which residents work consecutive nights, have been increasingly adopted in paediatric programs, but may be detrimental to residents' sleep and mood. OBJECTIVE: To describe the self-reported impact of a novel system consisting of two consecutive weeks of 16 h overnight shifts every second day that was piloted at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (Ottawa, Ontario). METHODS: A survey of 28 senior paediatric residents examined their experience with the alternate night-float system in three domains (patient care, resident professional development and well-being) and their comparison of the system with the traditional overnight on-call system. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 28 residents responded. Nearly all (96%) felt familiar with important details of inpatients and that handover was effective (92%). Results were mixed for professional development, with concerns about the quality of supervisors' feedback and perceived difficulty in attending daytime teaching. All residents believed that the night-float system provided a better learning experience compared with the traditional system. Less than 35% considered fatigue to be a notable problem, although 20% increased use of sleep aids or stimulants beyond their typical use. Ninety-six percent believed their workload was appropriate. All residents felt equally or less fatigued under the night-float system compared with the traditional system. Ninety-six percent recommended that the night-float model continue as the on-call system. CONCLUSIONS: This novel night-float system is an alternative method of providing paediatric inpatient night coverage because it meets duty hour regulations and has strong resident approval. Studies to examine its impact on residents and patient care in comparison with other systems are warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".