Table 1.

Characteristics of Included Studies (n = 11 studies)

Study		Block schedule typea	Residency setting (all IM residencies)	Number of residents in analysis	Study follow-up (months)	Control group for comparison	Reported Outcomes
							Resident satisfaction	Inpatient-outpatient conflict	Care continuity	Ambulatory training time	Patient satisfaction	Patient outcomes
“Short” ambulatory blocks (1 week, n = 4)
Chaudry et al., 201324		4 + 1	University-based program in Long Island, NY	82b	9	Pre-post	X	X		X
Harrison et al., 201425		3 + 1	University-based program in Syracuse, NY	80b	10	Concurrentc	X	X	X
Heist et al., 201426		4 + 1	University-based program in Denver, CO	38d	5	Historicale			X	X
Mariotti et al., 201027		4 + 1	Community-based program in Allentown, PA	34	7	Pre-post	X		X	X
Other ambulatory block designs (n = 7)
Bates et al., 2016f23		3 + 3	University-based program in Boston, MA	84b	12	Pre-post	X	X	X	X
Francis et al.f, g	June 201417	Varioush: 4 + 4 8 + 4 8 + 8 “Long”h	University and community programs in 12 sites	326	9	Concurrentj	X	X
	Sept 201418		University and community programs in 11 sites	305i							X
	201519		University and community programs in 12 sites	463					X	X
	201620		University and community programs in 12 sites	463								X
Warm et al., 2008f, k28		1 year	University-based program in Cincinnati, OH	69	12	Pre-post	X	X	X		X	X
Wieland et al., 2013f29		4 + 4	University-based program in Rochester, MN	56	12	Pre-post	X		X		X	X

IM internal medicine

^aBlock schedule type reported as “X inpatient weeks + Y clinic weeks”; i.e., 4 + 1 should be interpreted as “4 inpatient weeks + 1 clinic week.” Programs were further grouped by ambulatory block length, i.e., “short” ambulatory blocks of ≤ 1 week and “long” ambulatory blocks of ≥ 3 weeks

^bOnly second- and third-year residents included in analysis

^cInterns maintained a traditional ambulatory schedule and were compared to second- and third-year residents who experienced a block schedule

^dOnly first-year residents included in analysis

^eInterns from academic year 2011–2012 maintained a traditional ambulatory schedule and were compared to interns from academic year 2012–2013 who experienced a block schedule

^fBlock scheduling implementation and evaluation was supported by the Educational Innovations Project

^gAll Francis et al. studies were evaluations of block scheduling in the same cohort of residents; each study reported different outcomes as noted in the table. Although the cohort consisted of a total of 713–730 residents across 12 programs, the n reported here reflects number of residents included in analyses comparing traditional and block scheduling programs and excludes those in “mixed” programs with components of both traditional and block scheduling

^hAll of the listed models were included in one “block scheduling” comparison group

ⁱOne site using a different patient satisfaction survey from the 11 other sites was excluded from this analysis

^jTwelve residency programs that were part of the Educational Innovations Project participated in this cohort. Programs with traditional scheduling were compared to those with any form of block scheduling

^kLong block scheduling was defined in this study as 12 months of clinic between the 17th–28th months of residency