I always thought that the average salary for first year residents was in the high 30's/low 40's. $31000 a year seems very low to me. Does R1 salary vary depending on speciality, or are they all paid the same?Preppy said:
bbas said:
Well if you want a good letter of rec from your attending, then you would work your a$$ off and clock in about 100 hrs. The legislation that caps the maximum hrs at 80 is total bull$*it. Ask any resident and they would tell you they are clocking in about 100 hrs, thats the way things work, everyone does it and so do you. Now, that is for first year. Toward the second and third year of residency, you get seniority and usually those hours drop to about 70-80 at the expense of the first year residents. This also depends on your specialty. Surgery being the worst and dermatology being the best. All in all however, first year residency is the killer year and everyone regardless of specialty, works their a$$ off.BrettBatchelor said:
Preppy said:
IgweEmeka said:
Flopotomist said:
DeaconMD04 said:
DrHopeless said:
IgweEmeka said:
BrettBatchelor said:
ShyRem said:
Preppy said:
Flopotomist said:
Sparky Man said:
Didn't you just submit your AMCAS? How are you an authority on this? That's certainly not what the residents I've spoken to have said.IgweEmeka said:
It would suck to be a doctor and not have any money for food klubguts said:
I never said i was an authority on this topic. I simply just gave my input based on what my older brother and cousin- both residents, first and third respectively- have told me. Like i said, this is mostly with first year residents. My brother is clocking in about 100 hrs in a hospital in Chicago for his general surgery residency. My cousin on the other hand is more relaxed in his third year of internal medicine residency. During second and third year, things slow down quite a bit, but first year is hell from what i was told. The other interns and attendings work the residents, think of it as a rite of passage, they went through it, so we have to go through it also.jrdnbenjamin said:
tigress said:
Also would like to point out that certain specialities are allowed over 80 hrs, don't know the specifics. Additionally, this doesn't include time off the "rounds/floors/etc" so presenations, lectures etc I was informed are outside of that 80 hrs. There are ways you can get around it but for most specialties its 80 hr work week. If anyone were to find out otherwise, and someone has the balls to speak up (JH EM debacle is WELL documented) then things will change. More than 80 is dangerous working conditions these days with technology. Sooner hospitals start realizing this in my opinion better off we'll be.IgweEmeka said:
Only thing I have against consolidating against your spouses loans with yours ... even though they are my spouse, if anything were to happen to either one of you, the other has to sastify the debt. This is the ONLY thing I highly suggest you keep separate. Consolidate your loans, just from my financial perspective that is only my opinion. If something were to happen to your spouse (license revokation, accident, illness) and they can't pay their loans then you are screwed paying $300K instead of just $150K. There is NO way around this apparently either. Just a word of warning. I do not plan on consolidating with my future spouse who already is an MS-IIILJDHC05 said:
The extreme work weeks are completely antiquated, IMO. I read an article written by a doctor who did his residency several decades ago, and he pointed out how after what is now relatively routine cardiac surgery, the patient would be hospitalized for a few weeks(!). All they did was check a few vitals and meds and move along. Now, they have people in and out so fast that you're jumping from one patient to the next, each with an even more staggering list of problems.mshheaddoc said:
Exactly. Good point too.TheProwler said:
I have no idea what makes the most sense in terms of hour limitations, or whether as Prowler has suggested the nature of the practice has changed. But the argument I've repeatedly heard from the old timers against limiting residency work week hours was that patients tended to fare better when the same doctor saw them through their admittance, and basically had a stake getting the patient through the night. This patient became your big project from beginning to end, and each such patient was a learning experience in critical care management. With specific strict hour limitations, it is feared doctors will care less and be forever handing off patients to the next shift, without that stake, doing just what was needed to get the patient to limp to the next handoff - and in so doing will be learning less. No idea if this is true, but if you talk to older docs, you will hear this common theme.TheProwler said:
I tend to disagree. I feel that 24 hours in a hospital for a critcal care patient is long enough where usually they will be hospitalized for more than one day. Therefore you could be back for rounding after you've had your rest (which is 10 hrs per the regulation). Here is the full text of the restrictions with a result from 2003-2004 hereLaw2Doc said:
First off, bolded section is not entirely true ... ACGME has been researching this over the years.
Interesting cites - thanks. Well, I certainly didn't say it was my personal opinion -- just the opposing argument older docs give. From purely self motivated reasons I am happy about limited hours, but no idea if this serves the patients or not. But I do note with respect to your last couple of paragraphs that although as you have said sleep deprivation issue studies have been done over the years they fell on deaf ears until a few high profile malpractice cases popped up.mshheaddoc said:
I didn't mean to insinuate that it was your opinion. I'm sure most of us are happy for the lack of hours. But you are right in the aspect that sleep deprovation issue was brought to light in the "malpractice suing frenzy" that has ensued over the past few years.Law2Doc said:
