↓ Skip to main content

Patient Perceptions of Whom is Most Involved in Their Care with Successive Duty Hour Limits

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Patient Perceptions of Whom is Most Involved in Their Care with Successive Duty Hour Limits
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11606-015-3239-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vineet M. Arora, Micah T. Prochaska, Jeanne M. Farnan, David O. Meltzer

Abstract

Although direct patient care is necessary for experiential learning during residency, inpatient perceptions of the roles of resident and attending physicians in their care may have changed with residency duty hours. We aimed to assess if patients' perceptions of who is most involved in their care changed with residency duty hours. This was a prospective observational study over 12 years at a single institution. Participants were 22,408 inpatients admitted to the general medicine teaching service from 2001 to 2013, who completed a 1-month follow-up phone interview. Percentage of inpatients who reported an attending, resident, or intern as most involved in their care by duty hour period (pre-2003, post-2003-pre-2011, post-2011). With successive duty hour limits, the percentage of patients who reported the attending as most involved in their care increased (pre-2003 20 %, post-2003-pre-2011 29 %, post-2011 37 %, p < 0.001). Simultaneously, fewer patients reported a housestaff physician (resident or intern) as most involved in their care (pre-2003 20 %, post-2003-pre-2011 17 %, post-2011 12 %, p < 0.001). In multinomial regression models controlling for patient age, race, gender and hospitalist as teaching attending, the relative risk ratio of naming the resident versus the attending was higher in the pre-2003 period (1.44, 95 % CI 1.28-1.62, p < 0.001) than the post-2003-pre-2011 (reference group). In contrast, the relative risk ratio for naming the resident versus the attending was lower in the post-2011 period (0.79, 95 % CI 0.68-0.93, p = 0.004) compared to the reference group. After successive residency duty hours limits, hospitalized patients were more likely to report the attending physician and less likely to report the resident or intern as most involved in their hospital care. Given the importance of experiential learning to the formation of clinical judgment for independent practice, further study on the implications of these trends for resident education and patient safety is warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Librarian 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 9 29%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Psychology 3 10%
Social Sciences 3 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,235,941
of 24,835,287 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,671
of 8,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,059
of 268,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#24
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,835,287 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,018 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.