ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Over the past decade, nearly half of internal medicine residencies have implemented block clinic scheduling; however, the effects on residency-related outcomes are unknown. The authors systematically reviewed the impact of block versus traditional ambulatory scheduling on residency-related outcomes, including (1) resident satisfaction, (2) resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, (3) ambulatory training time, (4) continuity of care, (5) patient satisfaction, and (6) patient health outcomes. METHOD:The authors reviewed the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE InProcess, EBSCO CINAHL, EBSCO ERIC, and the Cochrane Library from inception through March 2017 and included studies of residency programs comparing block to traditional scheduling with at least one outcome of interest. Two authors independently extracted data on setting, participants, schedule design, and the outcomes of interest. RESULTS:Of 8139 studies, 11 studies of fair to moderate methodologic quality were included in the final analysis. Overall, block scheduling was associated with marked improvements in resident satisfaction (n?=?7 studies, effect size range -?0.3 to +?0.9), resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities (n?=?5, effect size range +?0.3 to +?2.6), and available ambulatory training time (n?=?5). Larger improvements occurred in programs implementing short (1 week) ambulatory blocks. However, block scheduling may result in worse physician continuity (n?=?4). Block scheduling had inconsistent effects on patient continuity (n?=?4), satisfaction (n?=?3), and health outcomes (n?=?3). DISCUSSION:Although block scheduling improves resident satisfaction, conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, and ambulatory training time, there may be important tradeoffs with worse care continuity.
