Cited by 16Innovations in Medical EducationHospital Admissions and OutcomesHealth and Medical Education

Length of Attending-Student and Resident-Student Interactions in the Inpatient Medicine Clerkship

Osman, Nora Y., Walling, Jessica L., Mitchell, Vivian G., Alexander, Erik K.·2015·Teaching and Learning in Medicine

Abstract

UNLABELLED: PHENOMENON: Changes in the medical education milieu have led away from the apprenticeship model resulting in shorter physician-student interactions. Faculty and student feedback suggests that supervisor/student interactions may now be more cursory with increasing numbers of supervisors per student, and shorter duration of interaction. This may affect both education and student assessment. APPROACH: We compared inpatient attending and resident daily schedules with those of 3rd- and 4th-year medical students rotating on medicine clerkships at Brigham and Women's Hospital during academic years 2009-11 to determine the number of days of overlap. We used evaluation forms to determine the extent of evaluator's self-reported knowledge of the student. FINDINGS: We correlated the daily schedules of 199 students and 204 resident and 187 attending physicians, which resulted in 558 resident-student pairings and 680 attending-student pairings over 2 years. During a 4-week block, students averaged 3.7 attending physicians (M = 4, range = 2-7), with 49.7% supervised by 4 or more. Attending-student overlap averaged 9 days (M = 9, range = 2-23), though 40% were 7 days or less. Students overlapped with an average 3.4 residents (M = 3, range = 1-6). Resident-student overlap averaged 12 days (M = 11, range = 3-26). There were 824 student assessment forms analyzed. Resident and attending physician supervisors describing knowledge of their student as "good/average" overlapped with students for 14 and 11 days respectively compared to resident and physician supervisors who described their knowledge as "poor" (11 days, p < .01; 6 days, p < .01). Insights: On the inpatient medicine clerkship, students have multiple supervising physicians with wide variability in the period of overlap. This leads to a disrupted apprenticeship model with fragmentation of supervision and concomitant effects on assessment, feedback, role modeling, and clerkship education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10401334.2015.1011655

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Osman, N. Y., Walling, J. L., Mitchell, V. G., & Alexander, E. K.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Osman, Nora Y.
Venue
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Published
2015-04-03
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
130-137
ISSN
  • 1040-1334 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-8015
OpenAlex
W1971127284
Cited by
16
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3
FWCI
2.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Teaching and Learning in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
Keywords
apprenticeship model, student assessment, feedback, role modeling, medical education
MeSH terms
Boston, Clinical Clerkship, Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Female, Humans, Internship and Residency, Interprofessional Relations, Male, Patient Care Team, Students, Medical, Time Factors, Workload

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review