Hopkins Internal Medicine (80 hr work week)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

ckent

Membership Revoked
Removed
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2000
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
3
Doesn't look like anything serious in the long term for Hopkins, but I'm glad that they are enforcing the 80 hr work week. Ironically, I was just talking to a former Hopkins person and he was saying that the surgery department is working harder to keep the 80 hr work week then the medicine department.

http://www.sunspot.net/news/educati...aug27,0,4041641.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

Hopkins residency program loses accreditation over labor rules
Some say board made example of med school

Columnist

Mike Bowler
Education Beat column

By David Kohn
Sun Staff
Originally published August 27, 2003

In a wake-up call to hospitals across the country, a national oversight board has withdrawn certification from the Johns Hopkins University's largest medical residency program.

Hopkins' internal medicine program, which has 106 residents, was stripped of accreditation for several violations, including failure to limit residents' work schedule to fewer than 80 hours per week.

"We were very surprised," said Dr. David Nichols, vice dean of education at the medical school.

Hopkins officials learned of the decision last week by the Accreditation Council For Graduate Medical Education, a private group that certifies all medical residency programs in the country.

The university is the first institution cited for violating new work restrictions, which went into effect July 1. They were intended to address long-standing concerns about exploitation of doctors-in-training and putting patients at risk of being treated by sleep-deprived physicians.

While acknowledging that the internal medicine program had violated the rules, Hopkins officials said that the problems were minor and had been fixed as soon as the school learned of the ACGME investigation. According to Hopkins, the primary complaint was that several first-year residents worked close to 90-hour weeks in early July.

Because the violations did not involve educational deficiencies, but problems with "scheduling structure," Nichols said he expected a less-severe punishment.

The certification withdrawal will likely have no practical impact on the internal medicine program, one of 75 residency programs at the school. The penalty will not take effect until July 1, the beginning of the next residency year. Hopkins can reapply immediately and could be reaccredited before next July. And Hopkins officials said they are negotiating with the ACGME to come up with a compromise that would allow the program to remain accredited.


Making an example?

But the episode is embarrassing to the elite institution. Some observers suggested that the accreditation group wanted to make an example of the school and forestall federal or state legislation by showing it could be tough on medical institutions.

Dr. Robert Udelsman, chairman of the surgery department at the Yale University School of Medicine, said: "They look at premier programs like Yale and Hopkins and say, "If we can take them down, we can take anybody down. And all these other programs will see that.'"

Last year, the council threatened to withdraw accreditation from Yale's surgery department for overworking residents. After making significant scheduling changes, the department kept its accreditation.

An ACGME official would not describe the violations at Hopkins other than to say that they were not minor. Ingrid Philibert, director of field operations, pointed out that the 80-hour rule has been in effect for internal medicine since 1988.

"It isn't as if this just started on July 1, 2003," she said. "We've had this standard in internal medicine for a long time."

She added that the group was not singling out Hopkins.

"We would have held any program in the country to that standard," she said.


Student groups pleased

Medical student groups praised the council's decision.

"We're pleased that the ACGME is standing behind the new regulations and enforcing resident work hours," said Nicholas Rudikoff, a research analyst for the Committee On Interns and Residents, a union with 12,000 members on the East Coast and in California. The group has no members at Hopkins.

For years, critics have said that long hours put in by many residents were unfair and potentially dangerous to patients. In some specialties such as surgery, residents typically worked 120 hours or more a week. Among other things, the new rules limit residents to an average of 80 hours a week over a given month.

Soon after the rules took effect, a Hopkins resident reported violations to the ACGME. In late July, the group sent a team of investigators to look into the allegations.

Nichols said the internal medicine program had passed regular accreditation reviews several times since 1988, and had received only two minor citations for work schedule violations, in 1997 and 2001. He described the new rules as "extremely complex and subtle."

Others echoed Nichols' opinion.

"Everybody's struggling with [the new rules]. I think there will be a number of these cases," said John Weinerth, dean of graduate medical education at Duke University Medical School.

Since the new rules took effect July 1, the ACGME has received five to 10 other complaints about violations, Philibert said. The board is beginning to investigate several of them.

Lauren Oshman, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said she suspects that many of the nation's 100,000 residents are still working more than 80 hours a week. She said that since July 1, the AMSA had received many calls from residents who said their programs were not complying with the new rules.


An opposing view

Not all medical students praised the board's decision.

"I think it's absurd," said John Dooley, 28, a third-year resident in Hopkins' internal medicine program.

Over a year, Dooley said, internal medicine residents probably work an average of 70 hours a week. But in a given week, they might work up to 100 hours, he said. Especially in July - the first month of the yearly program- residents tend to work more than 80 hours a week, Dooley said. New residents are learning the ropes, and more experienced ones are spending extra time teaching their newer colleagues.

While the new rules will curb the most egregious cases of overwork, Dooley said, the ACGME should realize that medicine is a demanding profession, particularly at a top institution such as Hopkins.

"The intensity of the training is what attracts people here," he said. "That intensity builds outstanding doctors."

Members don't see this ad.
 
Good for the RRC. Its about time those slave drivers at Hopkins recognized that they are not Gods and can be kicked in the balls at any time if they dont keep their stuff straight.

Hopefully this will send a message to all residency programs that resistance is futile.
 
ironic sig there, MacG.

While I wholeheartedly agree with protecting residents from abuse, and this is a big issue for me, I must say that as always, there are lots of opinions out there without all the facts. Im sure that I might be included in that group. But to add context:

This is my understanding of the situation: THe medicine residents protect their juniors from call etc for 14 days. The acgme meanwhile has a ladder guideline: if violation of conditions first go to cvhief, then PD< then chair and so on up until finally the acgme. On day 9 a junior called directly the acgme, skipping the other rungs of the ladder and repoted JHH. The long and short of it is that the monitored avg hours were 88 for the interviewed and JHH didnt get a warning but was made an example of. Thus all the interns and second years in this program potentially get no credit for their still hard work after 7/1/04.

In all likihood, its felt, JHH will legally negotiate accredidation before then. HOwever while I certainly feel that the old school (as developed by JHH) should be put to rest, and the "Osler's Marines" attitude doesnt make for better doctors (potentially just dangerous and resentful ones) you must understand that 1) the appropriate ladder wasnt used 2) the extra hours were in large part due to protecting the juniors 3) there are very problematic flaws with the current hours protection desgined which threatens to relegate IMs to "shift work" like ER which would be a tragedy, - but its still better than the fed gov getting involved which is why teh acgme is coming down so hard-to show they can internally monitor. 4) and further to point three: the "80 hours averaged over two weeks) is hugely problematic as those of you with rudimentary stats can see. and its not merely hours, its scut and patient load (i remember my 22 patient load I carried which scared the crap out of me as an intern as it was far too high) etc etc etc.

So that's the story. Ok kids: Discuss.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I don't blame the junior for going directly to the ACGME. I mean, the attendings didn't seem at all apologetic in that article, I can't imagine them being very sympathetic towards a lowly intern that says that he is working too many hours. I'd trust the ACGME to keep confidentiality much more then my chief resident, and if it is commonplace in your program (ie everyone does it), there really does not seem to be any sense in complaining to the residency director about it as they undoubtly know about it but don't care enought to do anything about it. I wouldn't complain if I were just working 90 hours some weeks, 80 hours most, because I agree that medicine is not shift work, there's always something bound to happen right when you are getting ready to sign out. I mean, you can't sign out saying that the patient in room 10 is coding, but I'm over my 80 hour limit so you will have to take it. But if the avg that the ACGME was getting was 88 hours, I suspect that the actual average is much higher then that. If you think about it, residents are bound to downplay the number of hours that they work so they won't seem whiny in case they get found out, and then there are of course those that will just flat out lie and say that they are working less then 80 hours just because they don't want the ACGME coming in or they are afraid of being found out. Anyways, one of my attendings was saying how Hopkins seems to be made out of teflon, as anything can happen there and people just brush it off as "oh well, it's hopkins, they are still good". They have had a bad couple of years these last few years if you think about it with their research mishaps, Hopkins neurosurgeons and that twin separation, and now this residency accredidation issue, I think that Hopkins has still managed to emerged unscathed where most other schools (eg Duke) would have been tarnished.
 
"This is my understanding of the situation: THe medicine residents protect their juniors from call etc for 14 days. The acgme meanwhile has a ladder guideline: if violation of conditions first go to cvhief, then PD< then chair and so on up until finally the acgme. On day 9 a junior called directly the acgme, skipping the other rungs of the ladder and repoted JHH. The long and short of it is that the monitored avg hours were 88 for the interviewed and JHH didnt get a warning but was made an example of."


My understanding of the situation is somewhat different. The intern had discussed the work hours with both his residents and the attending on service. However, he basically was told that the medicine pd had shut down every plan for revising the work conditons that had been suggested by the residents. As asserted by the whistle blower, he/she was scheduled Q2 for the entire month on the medicine wards and logged around 130 hours the first week, was well on the way during the second week with the same schedule set up for the remainder of the month. In my opinion, the ACGME found such gross violations of the regulations that they really had no choice but to inflict pain as the first option.

Ckent, I wouldn't be so quick to trust the ACGME to protect confidentiality. They made little attempt in this situation. In fact they sent the whistle blower's letter back to the program director stripped only of identifying information. However, based on the description of the work conditions in the letter, it took little time for the medicine dept. to figure out who the whistle blower was. The letter was sent to all the medicine housestaff and the whistle blower encountered so much hostility once their identity was known, they the intern resigned from the program.
 
YEah I dont think we'll know the nuances of this; Ive heard the story from two excellent sources that more or less cooberated but who really knows.
 
If the Hopkins IM leadership thinks that keeping thier residents silent on this matter will stop any ACGME inquiries, they are sorely mistaken.

The ACGME always does a thorough investigation if they receive a claim. If and ONLY if they find corroborating evidence from other sources will they take action.

Can you imagine the alternative? You'd have IM residents at a rival institution making bogus claims and the ACGME would shut them down with no evidence ohter than a bogus letter.

I could write anonymous letters to the ACGME right now about any hospital in the country. The first thing they will do is contact me directly to see if I'm credible. Then, they will do their own investigation that has nothing to do with me. IF they find evidence of reg violations, ONLY then will they take action.

Some of you dont understand how the ACGME works. They dont just take one persons word for it and strip accreditation--they have a formal policy and procedure they have to follow.
 
exactly my point- the ACGME didn't seem to follow their own procedure and policy. we may all be happy when goliath falls, but honestly compells us to confess this wasn't a good guys vesus bad guys senario. As in real life, it rarely is. Remember "splitting" from psychiatry? We always much watch ourselves for it.
 
Originally posted by stephew
exactly my point- the ACGME didn't seem to follow their own procedure and policy.

Sure they did. They received the letter and did a formal thorough investigation of the program. ONLY then did they give out punishment.
 
To get the story straight. I know first hand that the resident who filed the complaint was rotating from EM. He was on a private medical service which has a Q4 call schedule and speaking with those on service with him was working probably about 90 hours per week. The complaint was filed the first week into internship with only discussions with the other residents on the service. He never approached anybody of authority within the program or within his program. He was pissed off one afternoon and sat down and wrote the letter. He was only working Q4 call with 4 days off per month. For god's sake it was the first week of internship very few interns at that point are even close to efficiency. There is a whole new system to learn in addition to finally having responsibility of patient care. The Q2 was in reference to the MICU call system which was actually devised by residents. In the micu one was q2 for 3 cycles then had a break which over the month averaged to q3. In fact the RRC has visited 1.5 years prior and okayed the system. The work hours in the MICU was 80-82 hours per week! Nobody was working 130 hours per week and that is ridiculous to even state without any proof or knowledge. The most I have worked was about 90 in a week during the first month of internship. As far as the PD shooting down any plans that is also ridiculous in fact the entire call system and schedules before and since the site visit were designed by residents. There have not been any work hour violations in the past cited and on this visit they focused on the MICU schedule as the major citation (the same one which had been approved 1 1/2 years earlier by the RRC). There is no doubt in my mind that they were going after the big name in the backyard of congress to show they mean business. To not even give a warning, come on. If this had been some small program with little reputation they wouldn'e even have bothered.
 
Originally posted by stephew
no they didn't.

So let me get this straight. The ACGME received the letter, and immediately upon reading it said "OK, Hopkins accred is revoked, case closed" and then they rubber stamp it and notify the IM dept?

What a joke. No reasonable person believes that.

I'd say your information is probably biased, based on the affiliation noted in your sig.

The people at Hopkins couldnt possibly be lying to you or misleading you, could they? Nahh... that couldnt be it even though the IM leadership at Hopkins has already shown a propensity for being less than 100% forthcoming and honest regarding the regulations.
 
by measurement of tone, Id say I have less of an agenda than you do.

you wrote: "So let me get this straight. The ACGME received the letter, and immediately upon reading it said "OK, Hopkins accred is revoked, case closed" and then they rubber stamp it and notify the IM dept? What a joke. No reasonable person believes that."

You didn't get it even close to straight. Take a deep breath in, reread my first post on the topic to find out exactly where they skipped a step, the move on for the love of it all.

"The people at Hopkins couldnt possibly be lying to you or misleading you, could they? Nahh... that couldnt be it even though the IM leadership at Hopkins has already shown a propensity for being less than 100% forthcoming and honest regarding the regulations."

Ah, now youre trying to hurt my feelings. I wish I could tell you more regarding my info and sources but I can't in good faith, so feel free to remain happy and smug. Nevertheless I stand by what I've said and am happy to let people on the forum take it for what it's worth to them.

BTW I agree with much of IMRES03's version.
Regards.
 
I hear a lot of assumptions being made here with no facts in evidence.

"They didnt get a warning": How do you KNOW this? Only the PD knows this, and I'm fairly sure they dont post on this forum. Will the Hopkins IM PD please stand up?

"They got screwed because they're Hopkins": Again, does anybody have any specific EVIDENCE OF THIS or are we just making up **** as we go along? Because some anonymous person says that must make it so?

All of this is just a bunch of hearsay and innuendo.... I bet the rumor mill at Hopkins is saying everything from this guy was working 130 hours a week to he was only working 81.5 hours a week.

I'm about 99% confident that the pro-Hopkins people are basically guessing as to what really happened and putting together half-truths from the 50 different conflicting stories they heard from people all over Hopkins who have no real insight into the true nature of the problem.

After all, I doubt the Hopkins IM PD made a public broadcast of the specific details, and I also doubt that he/she goes around talking to random people in non-IM departments.

Its very childish and immature to keep up this crying of unfairness. Please, people, Hopkins is NOT the end-all, be-all of internal medicine. You are putting yourselves up on a pedestal when you say that ACGME went after specifically because you're Hopkins.

Sorry guys, you have a fine hospital but ITS NOT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU. I see some of hte same arrogance displayed by the pro-Hopkins people that their program directors probably share and which resulted in the problems in the first place.
 
MacGyver - considering your post, don't you find your signature tag just a bit ironic?
 
Originally posted by doepug
MacGyver - considering your post, don't you find your signature tag just a bit ironic?

It is ironic because the attitude reflected in the sig is the EXACT SAME ATTITUDE that is prevalent in the Hopkins IM leadership.

Obviously they think they are above the rules and that they can do whatever the hell they want to.

The bottom line is they were breaking the rules, they KNEW they were breaking the rules (or so incompetent that its laughable in that they should have known), and they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
 
really, as expected:

The Residency Review Committee for Internal Medicine (RRC-IM) of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has granted the Department of Medicine's internal medicine residency program probationary accreditation. This action was taken in response to our request for reconsideration of a decision to decertify the program. The RRC-IM has pushed the visit up by one month in order to give the program another opportunity to attain full accreditation.


yadda yadda yadda, its what was expected.
 
Top