Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21853824›Full record

ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2011

'August is always a nightmare': results of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and Society of Acute Medicine August transition survey.

Louella Vaughan, Graeme McAlister, Derek Bell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Impact of the "July effect" in head and neck microvascular reconstruction: A retrospective review.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 'BMJ open · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Louella VaughanDepartment of Medicine and Therapeutics, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London. louella.vaughan@chelwest.nhs.uk
Graeme McAlister
Derek Bell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An electronic survey was used to assess perceptions of the disruption caused by the August transition and explore support for possible solutions. In total, 763 responses from members and fellows of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and the Society of Acute Medicine were received. The majority perceived the August transition to have a negative impact on patient care (93.1%), patient safety (90.4%) and training (57.8%) for a period of up to one month. In total 680/737 respondents wished to shift away from a single changeover day, with strong support for a staggered changeover by grade. Changes to consultant working practices were felt to be beneficial, especially the cancellation of outpatient clinics (75%) and the restriction of leave (69.9%). Further use of shadowing (74.1%) and online induction (37%) was supported. This paper concludes that there is a high degree of support for structured change to the current provisions for junior doctor changeover.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPersonnel TurnoverState MedicineEducation, MedicalHealth Care SurveysHumansMedical Staff, HospitalPeriodicityTime FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID21853824
PMCPMC5873737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.