4.6 Article

Staff and resident perceptions on the introduction of a team based multi-specialty resident night shift system

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 17, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268569

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The implementation of a new team based multi-specialty resident night shift system was well accepted by staff and resident physicians, with the majority perceiving it as a positive change that improved their overall wellness and daytime teaching and feedback. However, overnight feedback remained a challenge.
Objectives To determine the perceptions of staff and resident physicians on the impact of implementation of a new team based multi-specialty resident night shift system. Methods An electronic survey was distributed anonymously to all resident physicians in the Core Internal Medicine residency program at the University of Alberta. A similar survey was distributed to staff physicians in the 4 specialties impacted by this new system: hematology, respirology, nephrology and gastroenterology. Results 74 physicians completed the survey. A majority of respondents (67%) indicated the new system was a positive change. Most shared it was better than traditional 1 in 4 call (65%), with resident physicians appreciating the team based nature of the system (65%), and just more than half of residents (55%) indicating this system improved their overall wellness. Most respondents (78%) did not feel the additional handover required had a negative impact. Respondents indicated daytime teaching and feedback improved as a result of this system (52%) with most others indicating it had no impact, although overnight feedback remained a challenge. Conclusion The implementation of this new team based system was well accepted by both staff and resident physicians across a number of domains. Future study is required to determine its impact on access and quality of care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available