What kind of hours do residents work

Duty hour regulations have engendered significant controversy since their implementation, and thus far, their overall effect appears to be mixed. A systematic review found that while resident well-being improved after implementation of the work hour regulations, there was no clear effect on patient safety or clinical outcomes. Reviews including data since the regulations were implemented have reached similar conclusions. The reasons for the regulation's lack of effect on safety outcomes are unclear and may be due to several factors.

Residents are more closely supervised than in the past, which may mitigate the effect of trainee discontinuity. Any potential benefit of duty hour reductions may be attenuated because of the increased number of patient handoffs, which may result in more safety hazards. Finally, burnout and fatigue—known risk factors for poor job performance—remain common among residents despite reduced duty hours.

The impact of the duty hour regulations on educational variables has also been surprisingly mixed. Residents' educational experience appears to have been adversely affected by the regulations. Surveys of key clinical faculty and residents themselves have found that, although residents' quality of life has improved since , their overall educational experience may have worsened, because they have less time available for teaching and to attend educational activities.

A systematic review found that surgical residents had lower case volumes and scored more poorly on certification exams after implementation of duty hour restrictions. Effect of Residency Duty-Hour Limits. Arch Intern Med. Despite concerns about duty hour regulation's effect on education, a study found that patient outcomes for doctors who trained under reduced duty hours were similar to those who trained prior to implementation of the regulations. Duty hour regulations for residents have also spurred interest in the issue of fatigue among practicing clinicians.

One study found that many attending physicians, particularly surgeons, routinely work hours that would be prohibited in residency programs.

Despite this fact, available data seems to indicate that physician sleep deficits do not affect the safety of surgical care. One case-control study found no increase in complications in elective procedures performed by surgeons who had operated the night before compared to those with no overnight responsibilities , and another population-based study found no differences in mortality, complications, or readmissions between procedures performed by surgeons with sleep loss compared to those without sleep loss.

Two randomized trials of different duty hour structures, conducted in general surgery and internal medicine residency programs, have been conducted in recent years. The Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees FIRST trial , published in , randomized general surgery residency programs to adhere to the ACGME regulations or to abide by more flexible rules that essentially followed the prior standard of a maximum hour workweek.

The study found no significant differences in patient outcomes, including death and serious complications. The iCompare trial, a similar study involving internal medicine residency programs, published its initial results in ; the study found that examination scores and time spent in direct patient care did not differ between groups, although educational satisfaction was lower among residents in programs assigned to flexible duty hour rules.

On the basis of these results, the ACGME eliminated the hour shift limit for first-year residents, but kept the remainder of the regulations: an overall hour per weekwork limit, maximum shift duration of 24 hours plus 4 hours for transitioning care , one day off per week averaged over a 4-week period , and on-call no more than once every 3 nights. These new regulations went into effect in July To sign up for updates or to access your subscriber preferences, please enter your email address below.

We want to hear from our users about how we can improve the PSNet experience. Please select your preferred way to submit a case. Note that even if you have an account, you can still choose to submit a case as a guest.

And if you do choose to submit as a logged-in user, your name will not be publicly associated with the case. Learn more information here. Provide Feedback Submit a Case. Use quotes to search for an exact match of a phrase.

Example: "communication between providers and nurses". Put a minus sign just before words you don't want. Example: "adverse events" -"drug". Example: medication safety. The PSNet Collection. Patient Safety Training and Education. Improvement Resources. About PSNet. The Fundamentals Primers Topics Glossary. All Content. Current Weekly Issue. Past Weekly Issues. Curated Libraries. The Fundamentals. Continuing Education. Training Catalog. Editorial Team.

Technical Expert Panel. Just as an enterprising entrepreneur cannot form an independent baseball team and challenge the Yankees for a spot in the A.

Considered on its own terms, the match seems fair. Moreover, the original purpose of the system was to improve the bargaining power of medical students vis-a-vis residency programs.

Signer therefore dismisses the notion that the match harms residents. But creating order out of the chaos of a free labor market also contributes to industry norms of punishing hours and low pay, by restricting competition among employers that could result in better wages and working conditions. Legal niceties aside, it is hard to argue with this general characterization of the match.

After a federal district court initially ruled that the match might be an illegal restraint on trade, Congress immediately enacted legislation immunizing medical training programs from antitrust liability. While residency-program administrators no doubt take their educational obligations seriously, residents are also a cheap source of skilled labor that can fill gaps in coverage.

They are paid a fixed, modest salary that, on an hourly basis, is on par with that paid to hospital cleaning staff —and even, on an absolute basis, about half of what nurse practitioners typically earn , while working more than twice as many hours. In ranking programs, as Signer of the NRMP points out, most medical students are mainly concerned with prestige and the quality of training, not money. One study showed , for example, that even without the match, residents would still earn far less than their true market value—which is estimated to be about double what they presently earn—because they, in effect, accept a pay cut for high-quality medical training and a prestigious residency placement.

Similar preferences are observed in other labor markets for professional training—for example, law clerks working under judges—in which the long-term career benefits outweigh any temporary earnings hit.

Accordingly, it is not clear whether the free market would necessarily yield better resident pay. Working conditions, though, are another matter. Residents work exceptionally long hours and are subject to unrivaled physical and psychological demands.

And it used to be worse. The ACGME established further restrictions in which, among other things, reduced the maximum shift lengths to 16 hours for first-year residents otherwise known as interns and 28 hours for more experienced residents. These reforms appeared to substantially relax the extreme nature of medical training. Before, it was routine for residents to spend or even hours a week in the hospital and, yes, there are only hours in a week , with single shifts stretching to 48 hours and beyond.

Grumbling by the old guard aside, most in the profession agreed this system was abusive, outdated, and in need of replacement. Averaging hour workweeks and regularly putting in hour shifts is still brutal by any measure. In fact, the evidence is mixed as to whether duty-hour reform did much of anything to reduce the number of hours residents actually work. However, other surveys found that the reforms led to no change in overall work or sleep hours, and that the reforms actually made residents less satisfied with their work schedules.

How could it be possible for limits on work hours to not lead to less work? Most fundamentally, duty-hour restrictions did nothing to reduce the overall workload of residents, meaning the reforms simply require residents to do the same amount of work in less time.

For example, the number of patients admitted at teaching hospitals rose 46 percent from to , a period during which the number of residency spots increased only 13 percent. It is therefore no wonder that duty-hour restrictions are often honored in the breach. Residents are regularly expected to and frequently do work beyond their allotted shifts, with up to 83 percent of them saying that they are either unable or unwilling to comply fully with the rules.

Less obvious is that the hourly caps only pertain to time spent physically in the hospital or clinic—meaning they do not account for the many responsibilities residents must now often complete on their own time.

If industry self-regulation has thus far proved less than fully successful in moderating the excesses of medical training, could unions help? Nevertheless, union membership among residents remains low —hovering between 10 and 15 percent since the ruling. And while some resident unions have succeeded in winning small, appreciable improvements in pay, benefits, and working conditions, structural barriers prevent them from having a major impact on reform: Residents are physicians in training, at the conclusion of which they are freed from the strictures of this controlled labor market.

The only way to become a fully-fledged medical doctor is to set aside complaints, sign the contract, and move on.