How many hours do resident REALLY work??

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
It is a stupid practice to have people awake for 30 hours making decisions that affect people's health.

They have done at least one study which showed that reducing physician hours did not improve patient outcomes. While the cause is unknown, current thoughts are more hand offs and with less time, docs still do the same amount of work so they are making rushed decisions.

http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=8367

Actually, the article doesn't directly address working 30 hrs, just the 80 hr work week in general.
 
I just took MCQ/essay exams, so they're definitely nowhere as critical as the decisions you'd make as a resident. Genuine question here: do med students during the clinical years follow the same schedule as the interns (in general)?
No, as a med student, I pretty much always had one full weekend off in between rotations, in addition to at least one golden weekend per month (per rotation), plus Christmas break, a little extra time for Thanksgiving, occasional half days for lectures, etc. Say goodbye to all that when residency starts.

And how often do med students make critical decisions, particularly after being awake for many hours?
I was never responsible for a critical decision as a med student. A few times, I called a resident/attending about a patient when I was rounding on them (much earlier than the resident/attending was going to be) because of a new, concerning finding. Once, that led to a patient going back to the OR fairly quickly, but I didn't have any "critical decisions" in the process.
 
No, it's not at all common sense that extra training when you are extremely sleep deprived is effective. To me, it seems obvious that you have drastically diminished returns.

Actually, what's common sense is that after a certain number of hours without sleep, your focus decreases, you learn less, and you retain less. Oh, and you're more prone to mistakes. What's funny is that I think we all agree interns driving home after a 30-hour call shift are more prone to traffic accidents. Yet, so many are willing to let them make life and death decisions in the name of medicine. Let's just call it what it is -- a rite of passage. That's why so many are fine with it.

Creating the idea that either you take super frequent call or don't get enough exposure to patients to be a good doctor is a false dichotomy.

Compare these two schedules (I've had both of them):
a) q3 call - 7a-1p the next day, 7a-1p the other day with one non-call day off per week - 78 hours/week
b) Day/night float system - 7a-~8p 6 days /week with some weeks of 7p-8a - 78 hours/week

The hours are the same, the number of patients seen is roughly the same (probably more with the float schedule). But one of those schedules gives you daily sleep and the other makes you barely able to function every 3rd night.

These posts make sense.

I think we have set up the system as is because "it's just the way it is."

It's not like anyone thought this out and said, "Ideally we would like surgeons to be working for 30 hours straight to ensure they are good when sleep deprived." That doesn't even make sense.

Good example above on having a set work schedule, working ~80 hrs and also being able to sleep. I don't mind at all in bureaucrats step in and fix this. I don't care to work 30 hours straight unless it's WW III or something.
 
They have done at least one study which showed that reducing physician hours did not improve patient outcomes. While the cause is unknown, current thoughts are more hand offs and with less time, docs still do the same amount of work so they are making rushed decisions.

http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=8367

Actually, the article doesn't directly address working 30 hrs, just the 80 hr work week in general.

It also didn't hurt patient outcomes. So if it didn't hurt and it didn't help, why not allow residents to sleep a few hours every night?
 
What specialty? Is this an AOA residency or ACGME?

Ophthalmology. ACGME.

Here's a dirty little secret. The further away you get from the hospital the better your lifestyle becomes. Choose wisely my friends.
 
It also didn't hurt patient outcomes. So if it didn't hurt and it didn't help, why not allow residents to sleep a few hours every night?
Are the residents generally sleeping more because of the rule change? Or are they using the extra free time to watch TV, hang out with friends, party, study more, etc?

Edit: Wanted to clarify that my questions are regarding the 80 hr/week averaged over 4-weeks thing. Not 30 hr shifts.
 
Last edited:
Not really. We usually got sent home before the interns did, we had less work to do during the day, and fewer responsibilities. This is school dependent, but generally, it's a SIMILAR schedule, but not exactly the same.



Thankfully, very infrequently. Pretty much never.



You do get used to it, and yes, it's because you have to.

It's funny, though. Chronic sleep deprivation is sort of like chronic undiagnosed hypertension - a lot of patients who have had high blood pressure that was undiagnosed, once you put them on meds, come in saying that they didn't realize how bad they were feeling until they finally got their BP under control. You don't realize how crappy you're actually feeling until you get "treated" by a week of restful, adequate sleep.

No, as a med student, I pretty much always had one full weekend off in between rotations, in addition to at least one golden weekend per month (per rotation), plus Christmas break, a little extra time for Thanksgiving, occasional half days for lectures, etc. Say goodbye to all that when residency starts.


I was never responsible for a critical decision as a med student. A few times, I called a resident/attending about a patient when I was rounding on them (much earlier than the resident/attending was going to be) because of a new, concerning finding. Once, that led to a patient going back to the OR fairly quickly, but I didn't have any "critical decisions" in the process.
Thanks for the info. Good to know. 🙂
 
These posts make sense.

I think we have set up the system as is because "it's just the way it is."

It's not like anyone thought this out and said, "Ideally we would like surgeons to be working for 30 hours straight to ensure they are good when sleep deprived." That doesn't even make sense.

Good example above on having a set work schedule, working ~80 hrs and also being able to sleep. I don't mind at all in bureaucrats step in and fix this. I don't care to work 30 hours straight unless it's WW III or something.


the 30 hours wasn't just some arbitrary number....the idea is that you take a patient from the start and treat them through their most crucial time. Yes work hours residency is a relic/tradition/rite of passage from a different time, but sometimes is was done that way for a reason. I worry (and Im not the only one who worries) that further work hour mandates will a. decrease the quality of doctor or b. increase the length of a residency or both. Many programs are already adding on a year (for instance GI fellows are starting to have to go an extra year for advanced endoscopoy.) Procedure based specialties are going to be increasingly hampered by decreasing work hours. Once you let the bureaucrats step in once they will keep trying for more.
 
Are the residents generally sleeping more because of the rule change? Or are they using the extra free time to watch TV, hang out with friends, party, study more, etc?

Edit: Wanted to clarify that my questions are regarding the 80 hr/week averaged over 4-weeks thing. Not 30 hr shifts.

I'm sure they're sleeping more than they were. But honestly, as long as they're getting enough sleep to function well, it doesn't matter to me what they do with the rest of their time. Sometimes, decompressing for a while makes you a better employee.
 
the 30 hours wasn't just some arbitrary number....the idea is that you take a patient from the start and treat them through their most crucial time. Yes work hours residency is a relic/tradition/rite of passage from a different time, but sometimes is was done that way for a reason. I worry (and Im not the only one who worries) that further work hour mandates will a. decrease the quality of doctor or b. increase the length of a residency or both. Many programs are already adding on a year (for instance GI fellows are starting to have to go an extra year for advanced endoscopoy.) Procedure based specialties are going to be increasingly hampered by decreasing work hours. Once you let the bureaucrats step in once they will keep trying for more.

They wouldn't have needed to step in in the first place if there had been some regulation on work hours for residents prior to the 80-hour limit.

I don't buy the sky-is-falling argument. When the 80-hour limit came about, all the residents/physicians who were used to working 100+ hours screamed that it would destroy medicine as we knew it, lengthening residency or turning out unskilled doctors. It didn't happen. What happened is (non-malignant) programs (that don't expect their residents to secretly work over 80 hrs) adjusted. They'll adjust again with this new 16-hour shift recommendation for intern year. Medicine is an evolving field. Just because decades ago, residents took joy in working 100 hours a week, doesn't mean decades from now, the new crop of residents have to do it.
 
No, as a med student, I pretty much always had one full weekend off in between rotations, in addition to at least one golden weekend per month (per rotation), plus Christmas break, a little extra time for Thanksgiving, occasional half days for lectures, etc. Say goodbye to all that when residency starts.

This pretty much sums it up. Weekends between rotations are key. Then again, I always hated the rotations with golden weekends - because I somehow always ended up with my black weekend right before the shelf...
 
the 30 hours wasn't just some arbitrary number....the idea is that you take a patient from the start and treat them through their most crucial time. Yes work hours residency is a relic/tradition/rite of passage from a different time, but sometimes is was done that way for a reason. I worry (and Im not the only one who worries) that further work hour mandates will a. decrease the quality of doctor or b. increase the length of a residency or both. Many programs are already adding on a year (for instance GI fellows are starting to have to go an extra year for advanced endoscopoy.) Procedure based specialties are going to be increasingly hampered by decreasing work hours. Once you let the bureaucrats step in once they will keep trying for more.

That level of continuity is the idea - however, in practice it doesn't work out that cleanly. How often have you seen things change drastically for a patient while you are home post-call? Short of working continuously, it's impossible not to miss anything. The next best thing is having good education during rounds and in-depth sign outs. Yeah, I'll go for that one.

Regarding the mandates, I agree that you'll have to start lengthening residency if you shorten the total hours more than we have now, but many programs get along great right now on a night float system and don't produce inferior doctors. Then again, I agree that I would prefer that the programs police themselves rather than have the government set standards. Luckily, with the exception of New York State, the ACGME rules aren't dictated by legislation/government bureaucracy.

Re: the GI example, I don't think that really applies. It takes an extra year for advanced endoscopy b/c procedures like EUS and ERCP just weren't really done that much in the past and do require additional time to study. GI fellows aren't graduating unable to do colonoscopies and EGDs after 3 years. That would be like saying that cardiology training took a nose dive in the 1990s b/c many fellows started taking an extra year to do interventional procedures - PCI wasn't really an option before then!
 
- Get there at 6 AM on Monday morning to start seeing your patients.

- Stay on call overnight Monday into Tuesday morning.

- Leave at noon on Tuesday.

30 hours in a row! 😛

I think my personal record as an intern was 38 hours in a row. I went to work at 6 AM, finished the day at 6 PM, but one of my OB patients came to the hospital in labor at around 7. Stayed at the hospital overnight until she finally delivered at around 5 AM - didn't get any sleep because her labor course was pretty abnormal. Since I was supposed to be back at work at 6 AM, I just stayed. Since it was the day before a major holiday, we were getting SLAMMED - it was just me an attending, but we were getting at least 2 admissions/consults every hour. Finally went home at 8 PM the next day. I was tired, but it's physically possible to do it.

Good times, good times.
This is disgustingly inhumane/irrational. 👎



It is a stupid practice to have people awake for 30 hours making decisions that affect people's health.

Saying, "oh, we have to" is an excuse for lack of planning/resources.

Just like staying awake for 30 hours before taking an exam. You planned poorly the last however many months if you are pulling cramming sessions that long.

There are doctors in other countries that are not forced to work 30+ hours. There is research out there showing that decision making is much worse and errors increase after staying awake that long. But hey, it's doable! And we train much better mistake prone physicians. Education first.
Seriously.



They wouldn't have needed to step in in the first place if there had been some regulation on work hours for residents prior to the 80-hour limit.

I don't buy the sky-is-falling argument. When the 80-hour limit came about, all the residents/physicians who were used to working 100+ hours screamed that it would destroy medicine as we knew it, lengthening residency or turning out unskilled doctors. It didn't happen. What happened is (non-malignant) programs (that don't expect their residents to secretly work over 80 hrs) adjusted. They'll adjust again with this new 16-hour shift recommendation for intern year. Medicine is an evolving field. Just because decades ago, residents took joy in working 100 hours a week, doesn't mean decades from now, the new crop of residents have to do it.
*slowly clapping*

I'd be willing to take a big pay-cut to be able to get [at least] 6 hours of sleep per day. Make up for that cut after residency's over.
 
Last edited:
It's so easy to tell based on the comments here who are the 1st/2nd year medical students and who has actually been in the hospital...

30-hour call is not fun. It's miserable, but I would much prefer it for learning purposes compared to having my patient care interrupted every day by an arbitrary 16-hour limit on my duties. During my internal medicine Sub-I as a fourth year student, I learned more in the four weeks I took 30 hour call with the interns than I learned during 12 weeks of internal medicine third year. The reason is that I was able to admit and follow patients during their initial course in the hospital. When you have to take the page in the middle of the night because you didn't adequately address a patient's nausea (or pain or whatever it is) when you first admitted him, you learn about how to manage these things up front. Simply put, if you hand the patient off to the night float and never have to address the problem yourself, you will keep making that mistake.

We had an upper level resident night float system, so when you admitted in the middle of the night, you had to know everything about a patient for rounds the next day because the patient would be new to the resident and attending. This really increased the sense of ownership over patients and encouraged thorough and detailed H&Ps and management plans, even when you were tired at 3:30 am. That said, the night float resident was always there to help, and I never felt like I would have been more prone to mistakes.

The next day, we would follow up progress on patients and then round. All decisions regarding patient care were being made during rounds, so we had attending support in making those decisions. The system was designed to optimize our educational experience and provide good system-level support for avoiding mistakes.

It's also important to point out that once you finish residency and are in practice, there are no hour limits. If you admit a patient to a hospital and then something comes up in the middle of the night that requires your presence, it doesn't mean you're off the hook the next day by noon. You still have to work. Yes, there are more hospitalists and other shift-work type doctors that take care of things, but nearly all specialties will continue to have some form of call. If you don't get training to handle this in residency, there's nothing magical that happens after your residency is over to prepare you for this.

So, yeah, working long hours sleep-deprived sucks. I hate it, but I will vouch for the educational importance of it. I've seen night-float only programs, and the night-float interns don't take the same level of care of the patient. They basically are just trying to manage the acute problems (shortness of breath, nausea, pain) until the day team gets back to handle all the problems. What this results in is essentially a waste of educational experience when you're on night float. You also don't learn about the more complex pathology during this time, and the day teams don't take responsibility for these very real problems that patients often have.

If you want evidence, you'll never get it. It simply would never get approval because it would be considered unethical for some reason or another, especially since there are limited data to support that longer hours = worse patient outcomes. So we'll never know but all hold our own opinions of it. I just have a hard time feeling sorry for myself or anyone else for having to work 30 hour call when my father had to work much longer hours as a resident and my grandfather was a true "resident" (i.e. he basically lived in the hospital).
 
It's so easy to tell based on the comments here who are the 1st/2nd year medical students and who has actually been in the hospital...

30-hour call is not fun. It's miserable, but I would much prefer it for learning purposes compared to having my patient care interrupted every day by an arbitrary 16-hour limit on my duties. During my internal medicine Sub-I as a fourth year student, I learned more in the four weeks I took 30 hour call with the interns than I learned during 12 weeks of internal medicine third year. The reason is that I was able to admit and follow patients during their initial course in the hospital. When you have to take the page in the middle of the night because you didn't adequately address a patient's nausea (or pain or whatever it is) when you first admitted him, you learn about how to manage these things up front. Simply put, if you hand the patient off to the night float and never have to address the problem yourself, you will keep making that mistake.

We had an upper level resident night float system, so when you admitted in the middle of the night, you had to know everything about a patient for rounds the next day because the patient would be new to the resident and attending. This really increased the sense of ownership over patients and encouraged thorough and detailed H&Ps and management plans, even when you were tired at 3:30 am. That said, the night float resident was always there to help, and I never felt like I would have been more prone to mistakes.

The next day, we would follow up progress on patients and then round. All decisions regarding patient care were being made during rounds, so we had attending support in making those decisions. The system was designed to optimize our educational experience and provide good system-level support for avoiding mistakes.

It's also important to point out that once you finish residency and are in practice, there are no hour limits. If you admit a patient to a hospital and then something comes up in the middle of the night that requires your presence, it doesn't mean you're off the hook the next day by noon. You still have to work. Yes, there are more hospitalists and other shift-work type doctors that take care of things, but nearly all specialties will continue to have some form of call. If you don't get training to handle this in residency, there's nothing magical that happens after your residency is over to prepare you for this.

So, yeah, working long hours sleep-deprived sucks. I hate it, but I will vouch for the educational importance of it. I've seen night-float only programs, and the night-float interns don't take the same level of care of the patient. They basically are just trying to manage the acute problems (shortness of breath, nausea, pain) until the day team gets back to handle all the problems. What this results in is essentially a waste of educational experience when you're on night float. You also don't learn about the more complex pathology during this time, and the day teams don't take responsibility for these very real problems that patients often have.

If you want evidence, you'll never get it. It simply would never get approval because it would be considered unethical for some reason or another, especially since there are limited data to support that longer hours = worse patient outcomes. So we'll never know but all hold our own opinions of it. I just have a hard time feeling sorry for myself or anyone else for having to work 30 hour call when my father had to work much longer hours as a resident and my grandfather was a true "resident" (i.e. he basically lived in the hospital).

You can tell who is drinking the Kool-aid in this thread and who isn't.

It's great that you've formed an opinion that you learned more and somehow your schedule caused you to mentally "take more ownership" of the patient. Taking ownership is an attitude that is not forced upon you by a shift but instead a choice that you make. It's your responsibility. You said that, "you will keep making the mistake" if you hand a patient off. Maybe, maybe not. Systems can be put in place to still learn after a patient has been handed off. There are many roads to Rome, not just the "30-hour shift" road.

By the way, I wonder if "learning more" in your 4-week Sub-I during fourth year had anything to do with the 12-weeks during third year? Hmmm.

Also, just because you think you learned more doesn't mean much. Another person can tell a story of driving home after a 30+ hr shift and crashing their car or harming a patient or themself due to sleep deprivation.

Some quotes from an article:

Sleep deprivation is a silent public health threat, especially for medical residents. Pulling an all-nighter reduces your judgement and reflexes to the level of somone who is legally drunk.


Forty years of psychological research proves that sleep deprivation saps our mental faculties, including our ability to notice that we're impaired. It may come to feel normal, but the effects don't go away. That's bad enough for the average person trying to juggle work, family, and a social life. But consider the implications for medical residents who are responsible for patients' lives.

Sleep deprivation makes medical error rates skyrocket. One study found that interns made 36% more serious errors in the intensive care unit when they worked the traditional schedule of 30-hour stints every other shift than they did when their shifts were capped at 16 hours.


Sleepy residents are also more likely to hurt themselvses. Needlestick injuries are 73% more likely after 20 hours on the job than during shifts of 12 hours or less. Another study found that residents were more than twice as likely to crash their cars driving home after a 24-hour shift than after a shorter work day. Long-term sleep deprivation increases the risk of obesity, depression, and other chronic problems.
Responding to the "residents will be poorly trained" argument...
These are legitimate concerns. However, it's hard to imagine that any of these factors outweigh the costs of letting sleep-deprived residents make life and death decisions after sleep deprivation has reduced key cognitive capacities to the level of a drunk.

The federal government already regulates work and rest hours in the nuclear industry, trucking, and other sectors where worker fatigue could endanger the public
Self-awareness is important. But ACGME's language doesn't acknowledge the pressure that residents face from their supervisors and peers to push through fatigue. The language ignores the power imbalance between doctors in training and their superiors. In a culture where fatigue is equivalent to failure, admitting that you're too tired can have serious professional consequences. The demand that each resident monitor herself and bow out if she's too tired seems unrealistic in light of evidence that sleep deprivation blinds people to their own impairment.

If a sleep-deprived resident makes a mistake, this language would make it easier to blame her for failing to recognize her own fatigue, rather than faulting a system that expects trainees to work under unsafe conditions.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6391/group_calls_on_osha_to_regulate_residents_work_hours/
 
Last edited:
Look, I realize not everyone will agree, but I'm just saying let's wait until a lot of these 1st and 2nd years have been on the wards before being so highly critical of long work hours.

Also, MCAT guy, you should note that the studies you're citing were both performed at the same hospital on about 20 interns (total). It also doesn't accurately control for total work hours in the week. In other words, it's not clear based on the results if it's the long shifts or the total work week hours that are adversely affecting patient outcomes. There are reasons to criticize these studies that came out of the Brigham, and it shouldn't be considered a closed case just because they published something in the Journal.
 
So, I'd much rather have longer hours and get more time outside the hospital than work a given number of hours in a day, but have to be at the hospital every day to make up for it.

Maybe that's just me.
 
It's so easy to tell based on the comments here who are the 1st/2nd year medical students and who has actually been in the hospital...

Yes, I absolutely agree. This is a fascinating example of cognitive dissonance, and specifically effort justification. Briefly, once you've worked 30 hour shifts, you have a strong motivation to convince yourself that it was worthwhile. Those of us who haven't done so have no such motivation, so we are more likely to see the current system as irrational and inhumane.
 
It's also important to point out that once you finish residency and are in practice, there are no hour limits. If you admit a patient to a hospital and then something comes up in the middle of the night that requires your presence, it doesn't mean you're off the hook the next day by noon. You still have to work. Yes, there are more hospitalists and other shift-work type doctors that take care of things, but nearly all specialties will continue to have some form of call. If you don't get training to handle this in residency, there's nothing magical that happens after your residency is over to prepare you for this.

So you're saying that attendings (in non-surgical fields) take 30-hour call every third night? If you're not saying that, your point is irrelevant because no one complained about following a patient and staying up all night now and then. It's doing it on a regular basis that many find objectionable.

So, yeah, working long hours sleep-deprived sucks. I hate it, but I will vouch for the educational importance of it. I've seen night-float only programs, and the night-float interns don't take the same level of care of the patient. They basically are just trying to manage the acute problems (shortness of breath, nausea, pain) until the day team gets back to handle all the problems.

Yeah, some people say this, but I have yet to see any study or information that suggests that night float is an inferior system.

If you want evidence, you'll never get it. It simply would never get approval because it would be considered unethical for some reason or another, especially since there are limited data to support that longer hours = worse patient outcomes. So we'll never know but all hold our own opinions of it. I just have a hard time feeling sorry for myself or anyone else for having to work 30 hour call when my father had to work much longer hours as a resident and my grandfather was a true "resident" (i.e. he basically lived in the hospital).

Just because your father and grandfather did it, doesn't mean that everyone else has no right to complain. I get that the argument is inferior education, but I could very easily say that you'd get an even better education if you stayed up for 72 hours. Does that mean you should stay up for 72 hours? I could also easily say that you'd be a better doctor if you did four residencies instead of just one -- in surgery, peds, IM/FM and psych. Does that mean you should do all four residencies? The logic is flawed as there's always something more you can do to be a better physician. It doesn't mean that you have to do all of it, at the expense of your own personal well-being.
 
Last edited:
Look, I realize not everyone will agree, but I'm just saying let's wait until a lot of these 1st and 2nd years have been on the wards before being so highly critical of long work hours.

Actually, I think that 1st and 2nd years bring a different perspective that's, IMO, just as important. Why? They haven't been beaten over the head with the notion that they will be miserable doctors unless they work 30 hours. They know what they're like when they pull all-nighters. They know that if they stay up and study for an exam all night, they're worthless the next day and there's no one there to bully and harass them to stay up for 30 hours, making life and death decisions, doing procedures or surgery, or anything else that directly affects the life of someone else. First and second years haven't yet taken a sip of the Kool-aid, unlike residents and soon-to-be residents.

Also, MCAT guy, you should note that the studies you're citing were both performed at the same hospital on about 20 interns (total). It also doesn't accurately control for total work hours in the week. In other words, it's not clear based on the results if it's the long shifts or the total work week hours that are adversely affecting patient outcomes.

There's no doubt that a long work week can also affect patient care, but are you implying that without seeing it in print, you don't believe that someone working 30 hours is less alert, focused, and able to care for a patient than someone working 16?
 
Look, I realize not everyone will agree, but I'm just saying let's wait until a lot of these 1st and 2nd years have been on the wards before being so highly critical of long work hours.

Also, MCAT guy, you should note that the studies you're citing were both performed at the same hospital on about 20 interns (total). It also doesn't accurately control for total work hours in the week. In other words, it's not clear based on the results if it's the long shifts or the total work week hours that are adversely affecting patient outcomes. There are reasons to criticize these studies that came out of the Brigham, and it shouldn't be considered a closed case just because they published something in the Journal.
I think they're plenty of 3rd/4th year students, residents and practicing physicians who're pretty critical of obscene work hours.

So, I'd much rather have longer hours and get more time outside the hospital than work a given number of hours in a day, but have to be at the hospital every day to make up for it.

Maybe that's just me.

False choice.
 
'
 
Last edited:
False choice.

K, let me rephrase.

Given the same number of working hours, I'd rather have a couple days when I'm working longer shifts and have days that are completely free rather than working fewer hours in any given day, but having to work every day. Days off are the only things that keep me sane.
 
They wouldn't have needed to step in in the first place if there had been some regulation on work hours for residents prior to the 80-hour limit.

I don't buy the sky-is-falling argument.
When the 80-hour limit came about, all the residents/physicians who were used to working 100+ hours screamed that it would destroy medicine as we knew it, lengthening residency or turning out unskilled doctors. It didn't happen. What happened is (non-malignant) programs (that don't expect their residents to secretly work over 80 hrs) adjusted. They'll adjust again with this new 16-hour shift recommendation for intern year. Medicine is an evolving field. Just because decades ago, residents took joy in working 100 hours a week, doesn't mean decades from now, the new crop of residents have to do it.
It didn't fall, but it is lowering down somewhat. I'm in general surgery, and the field IS changing, in multiple ways. Back in the "old days," the residents worked more and did more cases, and they had a lot more autonomy. Attendings at some hospitals would just poke their head in to watch the chief do a fairly big case, but now that's very uncommon. I've never had one of my attendings leave until we were closing skin, and in med school, the only time I saw a big case being done without the attending was with a PGY-5 and PGY-6 doing a trauma. The trauma fellow had been in private practice previously, at least as long as the attending had been, so it was kind of a moot point.

I have a trauma surgery attending who is completely unfazed by anything I've seen come at him. He used to do a lot of vascular surgery, and he trained at a county hospital in LA. He did fellowships in neither vascular nor trauma. Nobody would do that sort of thing now.

Surgeons do a narrower breadth of cases, and usually do more fellowship training than previously. The sky didn't crash down, but it's not where it used to be.
 
Yeah, some people say this, but I have yet to see any study or information that suggests that night float is an inferior system.
There also isn't much data showing the converse. You would need some pretty long-term studies involving a lot of people to show a meaningful difference or lack thereof.
 
It didn't fall, but it is lowering down somewhat. I'm in general surgery, and the field IS changing, in multiple ways. Back in the "old days," the residents worked more and did more cases, and they had a lot more autonomy. Attendings at some hospitals would just poke their head in to watch the chief do a fairly big case, but now that's very uncommon. I've never had one of my attendings leave until we were closing skin, and in med school, the only time I saw a big case being done without the attending was with a PGY-5 and PGY-6 doing a trauma. The trauma fellow had been in private practice previously, at least as long as the attending had been, so it was kind of a moot point.

I have a trauma surgery attending who is completely unfazed by anything I've seen come at him. He used to do a lot of vascular surgery, and he trained at a county hospital in LA. He did fellowships in neither vascular nor trauma. Nobody would do that sort of thing now.

Surgeons do a narrower breadth of cases, and usually do more fellowship training than previously. The sky didn't crash down, but it's not where it used to be.
Yeah, but how much of that is due to work-hour limits and how much is just due to a changing culture? I will say, though, that, as a patient, I would prefer the current system.
 
It didn't fall, but it is lowering down somewhat. I'm in general surgery, and the field IS changing, in multiple ways. Back in the "old days," the residents worked more and did more cases, and they had a lot more autonomy. Attendings at some hospitals would just poke their head in to watch the chief do a fairly big case, but now that's very uncommon. I've never had one of my attendings leave until we were closing skin, and in med school, the only time I saw a big case being done without the attending was with a PGY-5 and PGY-6 doing a trauma.

How much of that is due to the malpractice suits that have skyrocketed in recent times?

I have a trauma surgery attending who is completely unfazed by anything I've seen come at him. He used to do a lot of vascular surgery, and he trained at a county hospital in LA. He did fellowships in neither vascular nor trauma. Nobody would do that sort of thing now.

And back in the day, doctors made house calls and "general practioners" did it all. Medicine has changed in general. Trying to scope out what's changed due to work hours versus all the other factors is nearly impossible.

Surgeons do a narrower breadth of cases, and usually do more fellowship training than previously.

That's because technology has also advanced. There's more fellowship training because there are more fellowships. There are more fellowships because we can do a lot more now than we could 20, 30, 40 years ago.
 
There also isn't much data showing the converse. You would need some pretty long-term studies involving a lot of people to show a meaningful difference or lack thereof.

Unless there's proof that night float can hurt patient care, I say choose the option that's in favor of sleep, a basic human physiologic need. It's Biology 101, IMO. Would you let a drunk surgeon operate on you? If not, why would you let a sleep-deprived one do it?
 
No, I believe it's been the same since the Libby Zion case resulted in the rule changes (based on older SDN discussions from a few years ago discussing this topic). Also, it looks like some programs can get an extension to 88 hrs/week averaged over 4-weeks, according to the ACGME document (I didn't know that latter part before).

You're correct.

And our neurosurgery residents have the 88 hour/week extension at my university hospital.
 
Wall Street Journal yesterday:

How Your Schedule Can Help (or Hurt) Your Health

Disruptions to our circadian rhythm, the 24-hour clock that drives sleeping and wakefulness, affect our bodies in more ways than previously believed.
New research shows that each of our organs contains cells with their own circadian-clock genes that help bodily processes, such as digestion, operate with maximum efficiency at certain times of day.

When a person's circadian clock is thrown off—by jet lag or shift work or eating at the wrong time—it can, over time, contribute to weight gain and depression. It may even increase the likelihood of heart and liver problems.

...

A team from the University of Pennsylvania, led by medicine and genetics professor Mitch Lazar, recently found a clock-gene mechanism that reduces the production of fat in the liver at certain times of the day. Such findings suggest manipulating these clock genes could have implications for diabetes or fatty liver disease.


Other researchers, like Martin Young at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, are studying clock genes in the heart and have found evidence that circadian rhythm appears related to lipid production, like triglycerides, which could stress the heart and contribute to cardiac disease.


The easiest of the body's circadian clocks to reset is that of the brain, Northwestern's Dr. Turek says. Getting enough sleep—seven to eight hours—and ideally sleeping and waking at about the same time each day, even on weekends, is important to keep the sleep-wake cycle in tune.
Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471904576228532850374342.html
 
what in the hell is the Kool-Aid? I think i want some.
 
I think the bigger problem is there is a camp of folks lobbying in here for "more hours, you *******, you'll never learn otherwise", and conversely the camp saying "fewer but more quality educational hours" and....

You're both wrong. Nobody gives two ****s about your education or how much you are able to learn depending on your comfort level with crazy hours. You're slaves. You have a job because attendings already did the **** you're doing, know that it sucks, and don't wanna do it again. You are a buffer. You are there because every one in the hospital has to have a certain level of paperwork associated with their stay. You think the boss is gonna do it? :laugh:

Believe it or disprove it.
 
How much of that is due to the malpractice suits that have skyrocketed in recent times?
I don't know. Do you? What was malpractice like 20-30 years ago? Or are you just repeating talking points that sound applicable?

Unless there's proof that night float can hurt patient care, I say choose the option that's in favor of sleep, a basic human physiologic need. It's Biology 101, IMO. Would you let a drunk surgeon operate on you? If not, why would you let a sleep-deprived one do it?
That's a false dichotomy.

Besides, surgery requires that you put lots of basic physiologic needs on hold. When you're doing a 6 hour case, you also don't eat, drink or go to the bathroom. It would be foolish to schedule an elective case at a time when the surgeon is exhausted, but because the surgical hospitalist model is the exception rather than the rule, you're going to get someone who has been awake for a long time when you need your appendix out at 2am.
 
I think the bigger problem is there is a camp of folks lobbying in here for "more hours, you *******, you'll never learn otherwise", and conversely the camp saying "fewer but more quality educational hours" and....

You're both wrong. Nobody gives two ****s about your education or how much you are able to learn depending on your comfort level with crazy hours. You're slaves. You have a job because attendings already did the **** you're doing, know that it sucks, and don't wanna do it again. You are a buffer. You are there because every one in the hospital has to have a certain level of paperwork associated with their stay. You think the boss is gonna do it? :laugh:

Believe it or disprove it.
If this were the sole reason, then you wouldn't have attendings in private practice with no residents. They can always hire mid-levels. I certainly will.
 
Unless there's proof that night float can hurt patient care, I say choose the option that's in favor of sleep, a basic human physiologic need. It's Biology 101, IMO. Would you let a drunk surgeon operate on you? If not, why would you let a sleep-deprived one do it?
Isn't working night float supposed to be pretty bad for your health too, due to disruption of circadian rhythms?

Regarding the patient care issue, cutting down hours worked as a resident would mean increased number of patient hand-offs right? And haven't studies shown that patient hand-offs aren't mistake-free either? Several studies have suggested that there hasn't been a decrease in mistakes made since the work hour rules came out; couldn't this be a result of increased hand-offs? So, what would happen if hand-offs are increased even more (by limiting resident hours even more)? Genuinely curious here. Hopefully more residents/attendings will chime in since they have the most experience with this stuff.
 
I don't know. Do you? What was malpractice like 20-30 years ago? Or are you just repeating talking points that sound applicable?

Talking points aren't necessary. Anyone who was alive 20-30 years ago knows that malpractice wasn't the huge business it is now.

That's a false dichotomy.

Why?

Besides, surgery requires that you put lots of basic physiologic needs on hold. When you're doing a 6 hour case, you also don't eat, drink or go to the bathroom. It would be foolish to schedule an elective case at a time when the surgeon is exhausted, but because the surgical hospitalist model is the exception rather than the rule, you're going to get someone who has been awake for a long time when you need your appendix out at 2am.

I'm not going to dictate what surgeons should or shouldn't do because I know that there are marathon cases that you can't just scrub out of because you're off-duty. I'm talking more about other specialties. But just for kicks, let me say that I don't believe it's unavoidable to have an exhausted surgeon at 2 a.m. when you have to have your appendix out.
 
Isn't working night float supposed to be pretty bad for your health too, due to disruption of circadian rhythms?

Regarding the patient care issue, cutting down hours worked as a resident would mean increased number of patient hand-offs right? And haven't studies shown that patient hand-offs aren't mistake-free either? Several studies have suggested that there hasn't been a decrease in mistakes made since the work hour rules came out; couldn't this be a result of increased hand-offs? So, what would happen if hand-offs are increased even more (by limiting resident hours even more)? Genuinely curious here. Hopefully more residents/attendings will chime in since they have the most experience with this stuff.

I already addressed this above by saying that there wasn't a decrease nor was there an increase in errors because of the 80-hour limit. So since there's no change, I favor the option that allows residents more time to sleep.
 
I already addressed this above by saying that there wasn't a decrease nor was there an increase in errors because of the 80-hour limit. So since there's no change, I favor the option that allows residents more time to sleep.

Actually, under the new regulations, interns will sleep more, residents will probably sleep less than they had in the past. Residency is going from being front-loaded to a more back-loaded approach. If you read the new guidelines, they seem to emphasize this by loosening restrictions the farther along you are in your training.
 
I already addressed this above by saying that there wasn't a decrease nor was there an increase in errors because of the 80-hour limit. So since there's no change, I favor the option that allows residents more time to sleep.
And like I said above, just because the resident has more time to sleep doesn't mean that he/she is actually going to use that time to sleep. This small study from Cincinnati Children's (although it comes with it's own share of flaws) suggests that interns who were working less and had more time to sleep weren't actually sleeping more than interns working the traditional hours:

"The residents on the traditional schedule averaged 7.6 hours of sleep per 24-hour period, compared to interns on the intervention schedule who averaged 7.8 hours of sleep per 24-hour period. Despite working fewer hours, preliminary analysis indicates that the difference in total sleep time is unlikely to be statistically significant."
http://www.jgme.org/doi/pdf/10.4300/JGME-D-09-00067.1

How will the new rules affect hand-offs? From what I understand, interns will be working less than before and senior residents will be working more than before (correct me if I'm wrong). So, will there be an increase in patient hand-offs? And if so, will there be a net increase in errors? It'll be interesting to see the results of studies (that will hopefully be performed) in a few years.
 
Actually, under the new regulations, interns will sleep more, residents will probably sleep less than they had in the past. Residency is going from being front-loaded to a more back-loaded approach. If you read the new guidelines, they seem to emphasize this by loosening restrictions the farther along you are in your training.

I wasn't exactly defending the new guidelines. I'm just saying that, in general, I favor a system that allows residents (all residents) time to sleep. That said, it makes sense that interns are the ones who have the tightest leash as far as the new ACGME 16-hour work restrictions are concerned. They're the ones who are inexperienced and more prone to errors.
 
Actually, under the new regulations, interns will sleep more, residents will probably sleep less than they had in the past. Residency is going from being front-loaded to a more back-loaded approach. If you read the new guidelines, they seem to emphasize this by loosening restrictions the farther along you are in your training.

None of the restrictions in the 2010 ACGME guidelines for PGY2+ are looser than they were in recent years, they just tightened them for PGY1 with the 16 hour limit.
 
And like I said above, just because the resident has more time to sleep doesn't mean that he/she is actually going to use that time to sleep. This small study from Cincinnati Children's (although it comes with it's own share of flaws) suggests that interns who were working less and had more time to sleep weren't actually sleeping more than interns working the traditional hours: http://www.jgme.org/doi/pdf/10.4300/JGME-D-09-00067.1

That's a lazy argument. There's no magical amount of sleep "averaged per 24-hour period" that makes one a better doctor. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about nightly sleep, not an average of how many hours one sleeps over a month. If someone stays up all night on Monday into Tuesday, on Tuesday, that person will not be in the same frame of mind he was in on Monday. But then he can go home and sleep for 12 hours. Meanwhile, the person who worked 16 hours on Monday, slept for 6 hours that night, but then on Tuesday, that same person slept another 6. Guess what, the average is the same -- 12 hours. One wasn't sleep deprived while working overnight while the other was.

Try staying up for 30 hours every third night and see if your cognitive functions are the same after 24 hours without sleep. Then compare that to staying up only 16-17 hours every day and see if you can still function the next day. You'll see the weakness in the argument immediately.
 
That's a lazy argument. There's no magical amount of sleep "averaged per 24-hour period" that makes one a better doctor. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about nightly sleep, not an average of how many hours one sleeps over a month. If someone stays up all night on Monday into Tuesday, on Tuesday, that person will not be in the same frame of mind he was in on Monday. But then he can go home and sleep for 12 hours. Meanwhile, the person who worked 16 hours on Monday, slept for 6 hours that night, but then on Tuesday, that same person slept another 6. Guess what, the average is the same -- 12 hours. One wasn't sleep deprived while working overnight while the other was.
That's true. I didn't think of it that way, so that's my fault. 😳
 
Talking points aren't necessary. Anyone who was alive 20-30 years ago knows that malpractice wasn't the huge business it is now.
I wasn't alive 30 years ago, and I haven't seen any actual data that shows how much more prevalent the litigation actually is. Have you?

Because the options aren't binary like you portrayed. You said: "Unless there's proof that night float can hurt patient care, I say choose the option that's in favor of sleep..."

That's saying that if night float doesn't hurt patient care, then we should do it because we can sleep more. What if it doesn't hurt patient care, but it hurts your education? I'm sure it does vary by specialty and maybe even by program, but I know that being on night float (in surgery) is going to result in a decrease in case volume, and it's going to compress a lot of my other experiences from year-round exposure to a single rotation.


let me say that I don't believe it's unavoidable to have an exhausted surgeon at 2 a.m. when you have to have your appendix out.
It depends where you are. One of my chief residents is going to practice in a place where there will be one other general surgeon. Right now, there's NO other general surgeon, so the guy there now is on call all of the time. Of course, the case load is not very high, but if he has several sick patients show up in a row, it's unavoidable to have an exhausted surgeon doing the operations. If he's used to it from his training, then he'll be better prepared when the SHTF.
 
None of the restrictions in the 2010 ACGME guidelines for PGY2+ are looser than they were in recent years, they just tightened them for PGY1 with the 16 hour limit.
Not true. Chief residents in surgery can get an exemption to stay longer than before to care for one specific patient if it would provide an educational benefit.


Took forever to find a specific source, but it's here (and still fairly vague): http://www.acgme.org/acwebsite/dutyhours/Specialty-specific_DH_Definitions.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not true. Chief residents in surgery can get an exemption to stay longer than before to care for one specific patient if it would provide an educational benefit.

That's true, I didn't realize that was a new thing. However, I don't see how that will lead to programs "back-loading", because it is an exemption intended for extenuating circumstances and not the sort of thing the ACGME seems to want programs to build their schedules around.
 
That's true, I didn't realize that was a new thing. However, I don't see how that will lead to programs "back-loading", because it is an exemption intended for extenuating circumstances and not the sort of thing the ACGME seems to want programs to build their schedules around.

It's not just that one exemption that will lead to "backloading." It's the fact that interns can no longer work more than 16 hours at a stretch, but the rules for PGY2 and up remain the same (plus this new addition of being able to stay longer than 30 hours for "one patient").
 
This is why I stayed away from surgery and IM. Some specialties exploiting the whole "hours = good training" thing IMHO. You can train physicians in a humane way, in fact you should. 70% of what your average IM resident is doing on any given day is non-educational, yes NON FREAKING EDUCATIONAL. So increasing their work hours by 100 probably only buys you about 30 extra hours of low quality sleep deprived education, and 70 hours of cheap labor. This is why the prediction by older physicians that 80 hour work rules will lead to dead patients has not happened, but all indications from board scores show improved knowledge.
 
I can say that the derm residents here don't seem to work a whole lot 😉 they're only on call every 6th weekend (yes, five weekends in a row off, work one weekend, another five weekends off). I only had three weekend days off this month (had to take a weekday off so I wouldn't have an hours violation).
 
I wasn't alive 30 years ago, and I haven't seen any actual data that shows how much more prevalent the litigation actually is. Have you?

What do you think spurred tort reform?

Because the options aren't binary like you portrayed. You said: "Unless there's proof that night float can hurt patient care, I say choose the option that's in favor of sleep..."

That's saying that if night float doesn't hurt patient care, then we should do it because we can sleep more. What if it doesn't hurt patient care, but it hurts your education?

Patient care > physician health > education. Just my opinion. Perhaps your priorities are different. To me, medicine is a calling, but my family is my life and if it improves my health and well-being for their sake to get sleep every night, I opt for that over education, assuming I'm not hurting patients.

It depends where you are. One of my chief residents is going to practice in a place where there will be one other general surgeon. Right now, there's NO other general surgeon, so the guy there now is on call all of the time. Of course, the case load is not very high, but if he has several sick patients show up in a row, it's unavoidable to have an exhausted surgeon doing the operations. If he's used to it from his training, then he'll be better prepared when the SHTF.

Well, obviously, that's an exception. I wasn't talking about outliers. I'm talking about the general rule.
 
Top