ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
"Who's on Backup?"-Exploring Internal Medicine Residency Backup Coverage Systems: Findings from a National Survey.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about backup coverage systems for clinical coverage when resident physicians call in for acute absences.
objectiveTo define prevalence, core characteristics and explore challenges of backup coverage systems in Internal Medicine (IM) residency programs.
designA nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of US IM program directors (PDs) explored "backup" coverage systems.
participantsPDs of 466 IM residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education responded during August-December 2023. MAIN MEASURES: Responses were analyzed using inferential statistics and thematic analysis of an open-ended question. KEY
resultsResponse rate was 57.1% (266 of 466). IM programs reported formal (92.9%, 247/266) or informal (6.4%, 17/266) backup systems. Most (64.3%, 169/263) felt use of the backup system had increased since the COVID-19 pandemic. Over 90% of programs listed acute illness, family emergencies, fatigue/impairment, and bereavement as reasons for backup coverage. Most programs (> 90%) provided coverage for absences from the inpatient ward, ICU services, and/or night float; however, 40.2% covered absences in primary care clinics. Most programs (87.4%, 229/262) had residents on backup during other clinical/educational rotations. Fewer than 20% of programs compensated residents for backup, namely time off and decreased likelihood of pull for future coverage. Only 15.4% (8/52) of programs provided monetary compensation. For long-term absences, 82.7% (220/266) of programs coordinated trades and 35.7% (99/266) used backup. Six themes characterized challenges of backup coverage: healthcare resources, call-ins culture change, balancing equity, patient care versus education, administrative burden, wellness/ burnout focus, parental/extended leave requirements. IM PDs expressed competing demands with backup systems.
conclusionsWhile backup systems are nearly ubiquitous in IM residency programs, PDs report significant strains in these systems including possible cultural shift in illness definition, workload imbalances post-COVID, and prioritization of inpatient coverage over primary care. System-level changes are needed to improve backup coverage systems.
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.