PURPOSE: Since implementation of resident duty-hour restrictions, many academic medical centers utilize night-float teams to admit patients during off hours. Patients are transferred to other resident physicians the subsequent morning as "hold-over admissions." Despite the increase of hold-over admissions, there are limited data on resident perceptions of their educational value. This study investigated resident perceptions of hold-over admissions, and whether they approach hold-over admissions differently than new admissions. METHOD: Survey of internal medicine residents at an academic medical center. RESULTS: A total of 111 residents responded with a response rate of 71 %. Residents reported spending 56.2 min (standard deviation [SD] 18.9) compared to 80.0 min (SD 25.8) admitting new patients (p < 0.01). Residents reported spending significantly (p < 0.01) less time reviewing the medical record, performing histories, examining patients, devising care plans and writing orders in hold-over admissions compared to new admissions. Residents had neutral views on the educational value of hold-over admissions. Features that significantly (p < 0.01) increased the educational value of admissions included severe illness, patient complexity, and being able to write the initial patient care orders. Residents estimated 42.5 % (SD 14) of their admissions were hold-over patients. CONCLUSIONS: Residents spend less time in all aspects of admitting hold-over patients. Despite less time spent admitting hold-over patients, residents had neutral views on the educational value of such admissions.
PURPOSE: Since implementation of resident duty-hour restrictions, many academic medical centers utilize night-float teams to admit patients during off hours. Patients are transferred to other resident physicians the subsequent morning as "hold-over admissions." Despite the increase of hold-over admissions, there are limited data on resident perceptions of their educational value. This study investigated resident perceptions of hold-over admissions, and whether they approach hold-over admissions differently than new admissions. METHOD: Survey of internal medicine residents at an academic medical center. RESULTS: A total of 111 residents responded with a response rate of 71 %. Residents reported spending 56.2 min (standard deviation [SD] 18.9) compared to 80.0 min (SD 25.8) admitting new patients (p < 0.01). Residents reported spending significantly (p < 0.01) less time reviewing the medical record, performing histories, examining patients, devising care plans and writing orders in hold-over admissions compared to new admissions. Residents had neutral views on the educational value of hold-over admissions. Features that significantly (p < 0.01) increased the educational value of admissions included severe illness, patient complexity, and being able to write the initial patient care orders. Residents estimated 42.5 % (SD 14) of their admissions were hold-over patients. CONCLUSIONS: Residents spend less time in all aspects of admitting hold-over patients. Despite less time spent admitting hold-over patients, residents had neutral views on the educational value of such admissions.
Authors: Sanjay V Desai; Leonard Feldman; Lorrel Brown; Rebecca Dezube; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Naresh Punjabi; Kia Afshar; Michael R Grunwald; Colleen Harrington; Rakhi Naik; Joseph Cofrancesco Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Valerie J Lang; Christopher J Mooney; Alec B O'Connor; Donald R Bordley; Stephen J Lurie Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-07-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Harish Jasti; Barbara H Hanusa; Galen E Switzer; Rosanne Granieri; Michael Elnicki Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2009-08-03 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Jonathan A Duong; Trevor P Jensen; Sasha Morduchowicz; Michelle Mourad; James D Harrison; Sumant R Ranji Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Hana Lim; Katie E Raffel; James D Harrison; R Jeffrey Kohlwes; Gurpreet Dhaliwal; Sirisha Narayana Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Chee Yeen Fung; Zhin Ming Tan; Adam Savage; Mahdi Rahim; Fatima Osman; Mohammed Adnan; Emilia Peleva; Amir H Sam Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 2.692