JAMA Study: Work Hours Limits Don't Improve Rate of Readmissions and Mortality

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I haven't read the studies, but anecdotally it seems like long workdays are simply being replaced with massive circadian-rhythm disruptions. That just makes the problem worse. I encourage you all to look into pilot crew-rest rules that are used in aviation.
 
Sounds good in theory but would require lengthening training overall, and would cost hospitals a tremendous amount to supplement the manpower (with mid-level providers most likely) to make up for the lost hours.


Perhaps. I'd obviously have to go through residency first to make an informed comment. It does seem like a system in ripe need of reform, however. I'd be interested to see how other OECD countries deal with the issue.
 
Perhaps. I'd obviously have to go through residency first to make an informed comment. It does seem like a system in ripe need of reform, however. I'd be interested to see how other OECD countries deal with the issue.
They've done surveys in the past as to whether residents would prefer short high-hour training versus long low hour training, and the consensus is always in favor of shorter training. Screw 7 years of residency to become a consultant internist.
 
It's a tough one: I've heard strong arguments on both sides of the issue.
 
Here is a link to an interesting editorial on this issue:
http://www.surgicalspotlight.ca/Article.aspx?ver=Summer_2009&f=EditorColumn

The views expressed in the editor's column via the link above, as well as in the article that is quoted, written by Omahen, would suggest that the same length of residency *or even shorter* might be all that is required with more attention to 'deliberate practice'

From Omahen, http://www.cmaj.ca/content/180/12/1272.full.pdf+html :

"There are 2 ways to deal with reduced
working hours: improve the quality of
the educational experience or increase
the length of training. Studies of human
performance in fields as disparate as
chess, music, sports, surgery and mathematics
have shown that attainment of an
expert level of performance requires
about 10 000 hours of focused practice.1
How long does it take to accrue
10 000 hours of practice? Working 80
hours a week for 48 weeks a year, the
10 000-hour mark is reached in a mere
2.6 years. So what’s all the fuss about
then? There’s a catch in the 10000-hour
rule: practice time must be deliberately
focused on learning a particular skill.2 Ericsson
and colleagues define deliberate
practice as “highly structured activity, the
explicit goal of which is to improve performance.”3
Is learning the main goal of
most of a resident’s daily activities or is
learning merely a byproduct of servicerelated
tasks?
Another number appears in studies
across disciplines: 5 hours.1 From virtuoso
musicians to elite athletes, top performers
spend 4 to 6 hours daily in intensely
focused, deliberate practice.3
Above this level, concentration and
performance levels drop off and diminishing
returns are received from time
invested, a phenomenon known as “effort
constraint.”2
In real life, residency training involves
a mixture of education and service.
Many learning activities, such as
reading, are done outside of working
hours. Suppose a resident is fully engaged
in learning relevant skills 5 hours
a day, 6 days a week: how long until the
magic 10 000 hour mark is attained? Allowing
for 4 weeks of holidays annually,
the answer is about 6.9 years. The neurosurgery
residency I graduated from was 6
years in length, with most residents electing
to take at least 1 extra year of fellowship
training. Coincidence?" (Omahen)


.
 
Were the work hour restrictions really implemented with the aim of reducing bad outcomes? It had nothing to do with... oh, I don't know... minimally humane working conditions for residents? :depressed:
😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
 
They've done surveys in the past as to whether residents would prefer short high-hour training versus long low hour training, and the consensus is always in favor of shorter training. Screw 7 years of residency to become a consultant internist.
NPs say they can easily do it without residency. 😛
 
The 10000 hours thing is being viewed more and more as a superficial truism.

That said, I wish the editorial author hadn't resorted to it as I think it clouds the real point and I like their overall point. The vast majority of your time in residency is spent in non-educational pursuits - service and busywork. A general surgery resident spends about 10% of their total duty hours actually operating.
Was this true even before work hour restrictions?
 
Hard to know. I don't have data to back it up. The overall case volumes are relatively similar, so I'd say probably similar or worse.
So if the case volumes are similar then why do older attendings say new graduates are less prepared for practice?
 
The entire tone of the article is that work hours limitations should be in response of patient safety. Gee, **** the people actually working the work hours. Disgusting. And you just know the slavedriver PDs are going to use this article as justification to petition for raising the work hour limits.
 
The wellbeing of people who practice it.

The entire tone of the article is that work hours limitations should be in response of patient safety. Gee, **** the people actually working the work hours. Disgusting. And you just know the slavedriver PDs are going to use this article as justification to petition for raising the work hour limits.
Then you are correct. I didn't read the article but a resident's well being is not that important to residency faculty unless it's directly affecting patient care, the flow of the healthcare team, etc. not to mention it's hard to get sympathy from faculty when they had NO work hour restrictions and were on call q2 days. It's only very recently that even medical schools suddenly give a **** about student wellness. I would say it's maybe even worse now, in that you are expected to act "professional" in an unprofessional environment. (i.e. you can't yell at a nurse bc you're sleep-deprived or upset as they'll always take the nurse's side over yours, etc.)
 
Patient safety should be the first priority.

Once you establish the impact on patients you can start thinking about the residency side. If it improves outcomes, great. If it worsens outcomes, bad. If there is equipoise - then you need to start looking at resident satisfaction, education, etc.

And I hope they use this as justification to get rid of the 2011 standards.
I don't think it's that it's first priority that is his issue with it, it's bc resident health has no priority at all (unless it affects patient safety).
 
But that's the whole point of the articles, especially the one from the NSQIP group. Once you've established that it is not helping (or hurting) patients, it's time to start considering the well-being of the residents.

He just misses the point that a lot of people believe the 2011 restrictions made things worse for residents' quality of life.
Yes, but the linkage between resident well being and better patient outcomes is tenuous don't you think? During internship, in orientation we had a lecture on Sleep (ACGME mandated of course), and the literature is clear on the effects of sleep deprivation on residents. That's is not up for debate. And yet residency training programs operate as if residents are somehow impervious to neurophysiology - esp. in specialties like General Surgery, where it's a badge of honor.
 
Good question. There's a lot of nuances to it. For one, as you say, how much does a resident's fatigue level (or happiness or whatever) actually impact the patient's clinical course. The resident is supervised and, in most cases, the patient's clinical course is going to proceed along in spite of whatever we do to them - does it really matter if a tired resident missed that low K level overnight? What is the "number needed to harm" (not in an actual stats way, more in a philosophical sense).

Another issue is the use of databases and the limitations in the outcome measures. Does a tired resident really lead to a higher rate of surgical site infections? What's the causal mechanism there. For some of the outcomes they use (readmission, failure to rescue) it intuitively makes more sense than others.
Exactly.

A patient admitted for end-stage heart failure is going to continue clinically the way he is regardless if the resident is fatigued or not. I guess the better question is whether there are MORE errors with work hour restrictions or less. Although, there are more things than just fatigue that can contribute to errors as anyone on the wards can attest to (many of which are out of the resident's control).

The cynical side of me thinks that academic medicine will never support decreased work hours, as a rule in general, even with good patient outcomes, mainly due to loss of revenue to the hospital (having to hire NPs and PAs to make up the slack) when previously a hospital having residents was a great deal financially for the hospital.
 
I'm not sure if this is something they're looking at with the RCT's they're doing, but I hope when they look at patient outcomes, they look at a combined effect of patient handoff intervention with the decreased duty hours. Hard to compensate for sleep deprivation, but can help alleviate bad handoffs
 
Patient safety should be the first priority.

Once you establish the impact on patients you can start thinking about the residency side. If it improves outcomes, great. If it worsens outcomes, bad. If there is equipoise - then you need to start looking at resident satisfaction, education, etc.

And I hope they use this as justification to get rid of the 2011 standards.
In addition to getting rid of the 2011 standards, is there anything else they can do to make life better for residents?
 
So work hour limits don't improve rate of readmissions / mortality? But they also don't make them worse?

Good then it means that the outcomes are the same and residents can work less. 🙂
 
Those odds ratios were just too perfect.
 
I mean it depends entirely on what direction you want to go.

My issue with the 2011 standards is that they don't do anything to improve the overall quality of life - because they keep the 80 hr workweek in place. They just micromanage the day-to-day.

If you are committed to keeping the 80hr limit - I think the way to maximize the quality of life is to just have the 80hr limit averaged over 4 weeks. That allows people to flexibly work out the details on their own.

If you think the 80hr limit is unreasonable and want to reduce total hours...that's a different argument. You have to recognize that this would reduce weekly hours at the expense of total training length
I guess I mistakenly assumed that the current standards call for an 80 hr limit averaged over 4 weeks (which seems reasonable to me). But are you saying that residents are forced to clock out in order to not reach 87 hrs (or anything over 80) in a given week?
 
Keeping residents in training longer = more profit for the hospital. You're basically a full physician in your chief years being paid an accountant's salary.
No wonder those PGY-5 Chief surgery residents are so angry. I kid, I kid,...
 
I mean it depends entirely on what direction you want to go.

My issue with the 2011 standards is that they don't do anything to improve the overall quality of life - because they keep the 80 hr workweek in place. They just micromanage the day-to-day.

If you are committed to keeping the 80hr limit - I think the way to maximize the quality of life is to just have the 80hr limit averaged over 4 weeks. That allows people to flexibly work out the details on their own.

If you think the 80hr limit is unreasonable and want to reduce total hours...that's a different argument. You have to recognize that this would reduce weekly hours at the expense of total training length
The thing people don't realize here is that with work hours it's a question jumping from the frying pain into the fire. The workload doesn't change. Certain things have to be done regardless of what the mandated work hours. So if it doesn't get done by one person, the work doesn't disappear, it just gets shoved to someone else. They should pick the system that is least disruptive to people's circadian rhythms which would be the 2003 version.
 
The thing people don't realize here is that with work hours it's a question jumping from the frying pain into the fire. The workload doesn't change. Certain things have to be done regardless of what the mandated work hours. So if it doesn't get done by one person, the work doesn't disappear, it just gets shoved to someone else. They should pick the system that is least disruptive to people's circadian rhythms which would be the 2003 version.

If residents are carrying such a high workload for the hospital, it seems logical that they should be paid a bit more reasonably. It seems a bit nonsensical that residency salary funding is coming solely from the federal government, while real work is expected to be done for the hospital. Correct me if I'm missing something there.

Speaking solely for myself, I would sacrifice some of my future physician pay to increase resident compensation and lower working hours. A less jarring pay and hours jump from resident to attending would also make longer residencies more bearable, if indeed residencies had to be lengthened to compensate.

Of course I'm no expert here, so let me know if I'm missing something.
 
If residents are carrying such a high workload for the hospital, it seems logical that they should be paid a bit more reasonably. It seems a bit nonsensical that residency salary funding is coming solely from the federal government, while real work is expected to be done for the hospital. Correct me if I'm missing something there.

Speaking solely for myself, I would sacrifice some of my future physician pay to increase resident compensation and lower working hours. A less jarring pay and hours jump from resident to attending would also make longer residencies more bearable, if indeed residencies had to be lengthened to compensate.

Of course I'm no expert here, so let me know if I'm missing something.
The federal govt. is funding your training. Realize teaching hospitals bc they have a teaching mission, will be less efficient than your private hospital that isn't a teaching hospital where the job is to crank out RVUs - hence not only patient care, but conferences, etc. Residency training is a combination of education AND service. It's both. That's what makes it different from medical school. You're doing a job in which you're getting paid.

For a long time, having residents was a great deal financially for hospitals, since you have relatively very educated people who are trapped and can't practice without finishing a residency, you can pay them about $35-40,000 a year which is much lower than an NP/PA, and no work hour restrictions. It was a great deal for them.
 
just keep in mind the limitations of this study, guys. it was an observational study on patient outcomes in medicare patients ONLY. i honestly would like information about younger demographics and the incidence of medical errors. telling us that old people haven't really died any faster doesn't tell me that much.
 
If you think the 80hr limit is unreasonable and want to reduce total hours...that's a different argument. You have to recognize that this would reduce weekly hours at the expense of total training length

Do you really believe the length of residency training has any real connection with the amount of training that we need to be physicians?
 
The nights I had to stay up for almost 24 hours, I've dozed off and almost lead to people getting wrong medications...thankfully I was corrected every time, it is good to have alert staff when the doc isn't alert at all :O
 
Patient safety definitely is #1, and resident well being is definitely close to #2 as well, after all we are still human. I know PDs view call as educational, but the residents definitely pray each night they get 0 admits and 0 calls so they can have an easier time.
 
The question is this: because residents are working shorter shifts but handing off more, are hand-offs balancing fatigue in patient outcome? This has not been addressed yet.

Residency is not about length or "being hard." The term "Resident" came from the fact that you used to be a resident in the hospital. That was your life. I think it is silly to bring up "lifestyle" when talking about medicine - stop that. If you wanted a lifestyle you should have gone to dental school or some other profession where your skills are not immediately needed if someone gets sick. That's a crappy reason to go into medicine.

I can tell you from a "lifestyle" specialty of EM - I sure as hell put in plenty of extra time staying late, calling patients, doing charts etc, because sometimes it's the right thing to do.

As a medical student, and a resident, your job is to see AS MANY PATIENT PRESENTATIONS AS POSSIBLE. I say keep the long hours. Sorry if you can't go to the beach, but you may miss important cases.

Know why the surgical specialties laugh at duty-hour restrictions? They can't afford to miss cases. They absolutely cannot afford to miss repetitions of routine cases, follow up complications, see unusual cases, see unusual presentations. They get it. I'd let the surgeons lead the way on this.

You will be glad you worked your ass off MS3/4 and in residency when you are an attending and you get a difficult presentation. The more repetitions you do, the more experience you gain over a broader presentation matrix. What sucks is coming up against something you have no idea how to treat. Not only is insufficient training a medicolegal liability, it is bad patient care.

Get your reps.
 
I care about lifestyle :X

Thankfully, in many fields you can have both, which is awesome. That helps to keep your sanity when a LOT of medicine brings you down. As much as I hate call and wish it would end, I take it day by day, and try to drudge through. Yeah, I'm tired, and by the wee hours, I'm barely functionable, and can't think at all..my admit workups suck at late hours compared to the earlier hours....hell, I'm scared to do a code at 4am cause I don't know if I'd be able to tell the nurses what actions to do D:
 
The question is this: because residents are working shorter shifts but handing off more, are hand-offs balancing fatigue in patient outcome? This has not been addressed yet.

Residency is not about length or "being hard." The term "Resident" came from the fact that you used to be a resident in the hospital. That was your life. I think it is silly to bring up "lifestyle" when talking about medicine - stop that. If you wanted a lifestyle you should have gone to dental school or some other profession where your skills are not immediately needed if someone gets sick. That's a crappy reason to go into medicine.

I can tell you from a "lifestyle" specialty of EM - I sure as hell put in plenty of extra time staying late, calling patients, doing charts etc, because sometimes it's the right thing to do.

As a medical student, and a resident, your job is to see AS MANY PATIENT PRESENTATIONS AS POSSIBLE. I say keep the long hours. Sorry if you can't go to the beach, but you may miss important cases.

Know why the surgical specialties laugh at duty-hour restrictions? They can't afford to miss cases. They absolutely cannot afford to miss repetitions of routine cases, follow up complications, see unusual cases, see unusual presentations. They get it. I'd let the surgeons lead the way on this.

You will be glad you worked your ass off MS3/4 and in residency when you are an attending and you get a difficult presentation. The more repetitions you do, the more experience you gain over a broader presentation matrix. What sucks is coming up against something you have no idea how to treat. Not only is insufficient training a medicolegal liability, it is bad patient care.

Get your reps.
Ironically enough, the reason Emergency Medicine is now popular with medical students is actually because of lifestyle in terms of controlled work hours, shift-work, once you're done and off-shift - no pager afterwards, etc. Hence the mnemonic E-ROAD: http://yalemedicine.yale.edu/autumn2007/features/feature/51534/ (the initial story is in Emergency Medicine actually).

I just think Surgery and all of its subspecialties should be treated differently than the rest of the specialties. The learning that takes place on Surgery is different than the learning that takes in Internal Medicine or any another specialty. Surgeons know best how surgical education should be conducted. That being said, the reason it is probably not done that way, is bc it would be completely abused by programs.

Residency is a set amount of time, that is correct, but depending on specialty, it can be one of the worst experiences of your life. Do you really think a human being can completely abuse his body in terms of sleep deprivation, etc. and have it not manifest itself in terms of physical and mental health?
 
See this thread for more details:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...rial-with-icompare-and-first-studies.1104830/

Technically yes, you can still go over 80 hours in a given week as long as it averages out over the 4 weeks. But the other limits (16 hr limit, 10 hr break rule, etc) mean that practically speaking it is really hard to do so.

I like the way @Perrotfish phrased it:
Is there a reason why this only impacts general surgery? What about ortho, neuro, and integrated programs? Does it have anything to do with the fact that some programs ask for an 88 hour cap (at least for neuro and possibly CT surgery)? Also, it's interesting that NY hospitals are not on that list (unless I overlooked something).

As always, your feedback is appreciated.
 
I believe in the current model of training, length of training is a surrogate measure to ensure you've received adequate exposure/volume. I think you could accomplish much better training in a much shorter amount of time if a new model of training were adopted in which residents were not delegated to such a service intense role.
How can this be achieved? Would it require hospitals to hire additional PAs, NPs, etc?
 
I'm not sure if this is something they're looking at with the RCT's they're doing, but I hope when they look at patient outcomes, they look at a combined effect of patient handoff intervention with the decreased duty hours. Hard to compensate for sleep deprivation, but can help alleviate bad handoffs
No, that is not part of the RCTs. Not sure how you would standardize that at ~150 different residency programs
A handoff by its very nature is imperfect. You're handing off care to a person who has never even seen the patient before. The problem is you have to go home sometime. So before work hour restrictions, you just stayed at the hospital longer and didn't hand off as much. Probably not as good for residents mental health though. The Libby Zion case spurred a lot of this, mainly due to her father being a journalist.
 
I'm curious what the effect of the hour changes on residents' mental health has been. They should do a study of the surgical opt-out programs versus the ones operating under the current regulations that examines rates of depression, suicide, interpersonal issues, family issues (divorce rates and such), and failure to complete residency between the two groups.
 
A handoff by its very nature is imperfect. You're handing off care to a person who has never even seen the patient before. The problem is you have to go home sometime. So before work hour restrictions, you just stayed at the hospital longer and didn't hand off as much. Probably not as good for residents mental health though. The Libby Zion case spurred a lot of this, mainly due to her father being a journalist.
I just read up on the Libby Zion case; holy smokes that is freaking scary. I cannot even imagine being that intern. I can't imagine a more horrifying scenario than having a young patient quickly deteriorate, seemingly inexplicably, due to an error I had made.
 
There is some growing data on ways to improve the quality of handoffs (ipass study in the NEJM a month or two ago).

Only problem with that one is that the average length of the handoff was I think 5 minutes per patient!!
tumblr_mxyv0mDc661sl35g2o3_400.gif
 
I just read up on the Libby Zion case; holy smokes that is freaking scary. I cannot even imagine being that intern. I can't imagine a more horrifying scenario than having a young patient quickly deteriorate, seemingly inexplicably, due to an error I had made.
That intern's name was publicized in the case and is now an attending at the same institution.
 
That intern's name was publicized in the case and is now an attending at the same institution.
What is your point? That the hospital protected their intern and there wasn't any real consequences for her? (In terms of liability, malpractice, etc)
 
What is your point? That the hospital protected their intern and there wasn't any real consequences for her? (In terms of liability, malpractice, etc)
Um there were consequences, she had her name dragged in the mud (unnecessarily) as they found out why she died due to an uncommon drug interaction, and not bc of resident fatigue.
 
Last edited:
Um there were consequences, she had her name dragged in the mud (unnecessarily) as they found out why she died due to an uncommon drug interaction.
😢 Yeah that sucks
 
Those odds ratios were just too perfect.

This. This is too big of an issue for me to believe that the numbers wouldn't be purposefully fudged or selected to prove a point.
 
Top