ArticleJournal of hospital medicine2025
A multi-institutional multi-methods analysis of jeopardy systems in academic hospital medicine.
Article in Journal of hospital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Who's on Backup?"-Exploring Internal Medicine Residency Backup Coverage Systems: Findings from a National Survey.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- A multi-institutional multi-methods analysis of jeopardy systems in academic hospital medicine.Journal of hospital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHospital medicine programs use backup ("jeopardy") systems to cover unexpected staffing gaps, but little is known about their structures or optimal practices.
objectivesTo describe jeopardy structures, assess clinician perceptions, and identify potential approaches across a broad sample of hospital medicine groups.
methodsThis multi-methods study, conducted within a national hospitalist consortium, used virtual focus groups and an email survey to (1) describe the presence and structure of jeopardy systems and (2) explore features perceived as fair, equitable, and tolerable. Rapid qualitative analysis identified major themes, while descriptive methods analyzed survey data.
resultsTwenty-five individuals participated in focus groups, and 26 completed the survey, representing 31 unique institutions. Participants were primarily physicians in academic hospital medicine groups. Three themes emerged: (1) jeopardy systems are widely used but vary in structure, activation criteria, and compensation, leading to inconsistencies in clinician experiences; (2) many clinicians report stress and dissatisfaction due to unpredictability, perceived inequities in assignment, and concerns about inappropriate use; and (3) strategies to improve fairness, equity and tolerability include structured scheduling, support for sick days, and compensation for the burden of jeopardy coverage. Survey data confirmed high variability in jeopardy systems across institutions. Common practices included jeopardy activation over redistributing patients and compensating clinicians for covered shifts.
conclusionsJeopardy systems are essential for hospital medicine staffing but contribute to clinician dissatisfaction due to unpredictability and perceived inequities in coverage. Implementing deliberate scheduling, formalized support for absences, and equitable compensation models may reduce dissatisfaction and improve jeopardy system sustainability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.