Surgical education: foundations and values

Understanding the Multidimensional Effects of Resident Duty Hours Restrictions: A Thematic Analysis of Published Viewpoints in Surgery

PURPOSE

Individuals representing various surgical disciplines have expressed concerns with the impact of resident duty hours (RDH) restrictions on resident education and patient outcomes. This thematic review of published viewpoints aimed to describe the effects of these restrictions in surgery.

METHOD

The authors conducted a qualitative systematic review of non-research-based literature published between 2003 and 2015. Articles were included if they focused on the RDH restrictions in surgery and resident wellness, health promotion, resident safety, resident education and/or training, patient safety, medical errors, and/or heterogeneity regarding training or disciplines. A thematic analysis approach guided data extraction. Contextual data were abstracted from the included articles to aid in framing the identified themes.

RESULTS

Of 1,482 identified articles, 214 were included in the review. Most were from authors in the United States (144; 67%) and focused on the 80-hour workweek (164; 77%). The emerging themes were organized into three overarching categories: (1) impact of the RDH restrictions, (2) surgery has its own unique culture, and (3) strategies going forward. Published opinions suggested that RDH restrictions alone are insufficient to achieve the desired outcomes and that careful consideration of the surgical training model is needed to maintain the integrity of educational outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Opinions from the surgical community highlight the complexity of issues surrounding the RDH restrictions and suggest that recent changes are not achieving all the desired outcomes and have resulted in unintended outcomes. From the perceptions of the various stakeholders in surgical education studied, areas for new policies were identified.

Interest in and perceived barriers to flexible-track residencies in general surgery: a national survey of residents and program directors

OBJECTIVE

The American Board of Surgery now permits general surgery residents to complete their clinical training over a 6-year period. Despite this new policy, the level of interest in flexible scheduling remains undefined. We sought to determine why residents and program directors (PDs) are interested in flexible tracks and to understand implementation barriers.

DESIGN

National survey.

SETTING

All United States general surgery residency programs that participate in the Association of Program Directors in Surgery listserv.

PARTICIPANTS

PDs and categorical general surgery residents in the United States.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Attitudes about flexible tracks in surgery training. A flexible track was defined as a schedule that allows residents to pursue nonclinical time during residency with resulting delay in residency completion.

RESULTS

Of the 748 residents and 81 PDs who responded, 505 residents and 45 PDs were supportive of flexible tracks (68% vs 56%, p = 0.03). Residents and PDs both were interested in flexible tracks to pursue research (86% vs 82%, p = 0.47) and child bearing (69% vs 58%, p = 0.13), but residents were more interested in pursuing international work (74% vs 53%, p = 0.004) and child rearing (63% vs 44%, p = 0.02). Although 71% of residents believe that flexible-track residents would not be respected as the equal of other residents, only 17% of PDs indicated they would not respect flexible-track residents (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Most residents and PDs support flexible tracks, although they differ in their motivation and perceived barriers. This finding lends support to the new policy of the American Board of Surgery.

To leave or to lie? Are concerns about a shift-work mentality and eroding professionalism as a result of duty-hour rules justified?

CONTEXT

Medical educators worry that the 2003 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty-hour rules (DHR) have encouraged a "shift work" mentality among residents and eroded their professionalism by forcing them either to abandon patients when they have worked for eighty hours or lie about the number of hours worked. In this qualitative study, we explore how medical and surgical residents perceive and respond to DHR by examining the "local" organizational culture in which their work is embedded.

METHODS

In 2008, we conducted three months of ethnographic observation of internal medicine and general surgery residents as they went about their everyday work in two hospitals affiliated with the same training program, as well as in-depth interviews with seventeen residents. Field notes and interview transcripts were analyzed for perceptions and behaviors in regard to beginning and leaving work, reporting duty hours, and expressing opinions about DHR.

FINDINGS

The respondents did not exhibit a "shift work" mentality in relation to their work. We found that residents: (1) occasionally stay in the hospital in order to complete patient care tasks even when, according to the clock, they are required to leave, because the organizational culture stresses performing work thoroughly, (2) do not blindly embrace noncompliance with DHR but are thoughtful about the tradeoffs inherent in the regulations, and (3) express nuanced and complex reasons for erroneously reporting duty hours, suggesting that reporting hours worked is not a simple issue of lying or truth telling.

CONCLUSIONS

Concerns about DHR and the erosion of resident professionalism resulting from the development of a "shift work" mentality likely have been overstated. Instead, the influence of DHR on professionalism is more complex than the conventional wisdom suggests and requires additional assessment.