Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26140129›Full record

ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2014

Restoring Emphasis on Ambulatory Internal Medicine Training-The 3∶1 Model.

Joshua W Harrison, Astha Ramaiya, Peter Cronkright

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. An Interactive Ambulatory Nephrology Curriculum for Internal Medicine Interns: Design, Implementation, and Participant Feedback.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2017
    Article
  9. 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.

Joshua W Harrison
Astha Ramaiya
Peter Cronkright

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResident dissatisfaction in ambulatory care training has prompted the need for new scheduling models that support a positive learning climate.

interventionWe instituted a 3∶1 scheduling model for postgraduate year (PGY)-2 and PGY-3 residents. We hypothesized this model would provide a more structured ambulatory educational atmosphere, better continuity of care, and more exposure to subspecialty outpatient medicine. This model would also eliminate conflict with inpatient duties and contribute to enhance residents' satisfaction with ambulatory medicine and their ambulatory education experience. The model used weeklong ambulatory blocks every fourth week, consisting of morning continuity clinic and afternoon subspecialty clinics. The PGY-1 residents maintained a traditional schedule.

resultsResidents were surveyed regarding their ambulatory experience, with an overall response rate of 73 of 80 (91%). The PGY-2 and PGY-3 responses were analyzed descriptively and compared with PGY-1 responses. Residents reported that the 3∶1 model positively affected their satisfaction with residency training in general, their satisfaction with outpatient/primary care training, and their outpatient/clinic educational experience. Residents in the 3∶1 model perceived improvements in continuity of care and in the quality of care they provided for patients. The experience in ambulatory subspecialty training was positive.

conclusionsA 3∶1 scheduling model appears to mitigate some of the conflict between inpatient and outpatient duties. Residents agreed the new model promoted an improved ambulatory experience.

Identifiers

PMID26140129
PMCPMC4477574

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.