Has anyone heard anything new about where things are with the new IOM work Hour rstrictions. When Is the ACGME going to implement these? are they going to?
thanks in advance.
thanks in advance.
Here's to hoping for never...
Those restrictions were ridiculous & too restrictive for any of the surgical specialties & probably many others as well. How are you supposed to learn to operate if you can't be there to operate??
They do just fine in Europe.
Resident work hours need to be reduced to no more than 60-hours per week. Hospitals need to stop using residents as cheap slave-labor and pay us what we're worth.
Residents should be making $100k per year.
Are you willing to be a PGY-11 just finishing surgical specialty training because of those reduced hours?
...I thought not.
Who is going to pay the $100K - the government? Since CMS doesn't pay much more than that, that means YOU will now be responsible for your health insurance, malpractice insurance, no hospital food or book fund, no CME etc. These benes add up to about $50K per year depending on location. Still interested?
...I thought not.
Don't get me wrong, I think residents deserve every penny, but until you come up with a solution to pay programs more, residents aren't going to get more.
Nope. Residency lengths should stay the same number of years and should be 60 hours a week just like in Europe.
Hospitals and PD's use the guise of "patient safety" to justify inhumane working conditions of residents.
You and I both know what the real reason is: $$$
Are you willing to be a PGY-11 just finishing surgical specialty training because of those reduced hours?
...I thought not.
Who is going to pay the $100K - the government? Since CMS doesn't pay much more than that, that means YOU will now be responsible for your health insurance, malpractice insurance, no hospital food or book fund, no CME etc. These benes add up to about $50K per year depending on location. Still interested?
...I thought not.
Don't get me wrong, I think residents deserve every penny, but until you come up with a solution to pay programs more, residents aren't going to get more.
Winged Scapula, I'm interested in where you get your data. While I have no claim on having exhausted the database below or every single other database out there, I couldn't find info so far on surgical residencies (or any residencies) being 11 years long in Europe, most likely up to 5-6 years long @ 40-60 hours a week. And don't get me wrong either, I ask as an European.
http://www.helmsic.gr/residency-database/countries
training should be designed so that 60-hours for 5+ years is adequate.
I expect you may be in the minority who would be willing to swap a 3 year / 80 hour residency for a 5 year / 60 hour one.
well, what about hiring more people to do the scutwork so residents can focus on learning how to doctor. I'm sure most residents spend at least 20hrs/week on scut. For example, residents shouldn't be wasting their time making appointments for patients and never-ending social/dispo issues. Of course they won't do this, exploitation is so much easier.
If I read FatKid's posts correctly, he is NOT willing to swap.
He wants to reduce hours without changing the length of current residency training.
What I am saying, is that if we had an efficient training system in the U.S. where residents aren't abused and forced to do meaningless scutwork, with 60-hours per week of ACTUAL HANDS-ON TEACHING/LEARNING, this would easily prepare us for independent practice.
The reason why people say 80+ hours is required, is because residents are being exploited to do the scutwork that technicians/secretaries/mid-levels should be doing, AND ARE DOING in the real world.
well, what about hiring more people to do the scutwork so residents can focus on learning how to doctor. I'm sure most residents spend at least 20hrs/week on scut. For example, residents shouldn't be wasting their time making appointments for patients and never-ending social/dispo issues. Of course they won't do this, exploitation is so much easier.
Where is the money coming from?
Many academic medical centers already operate in the red, without having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to hire mid-levels.
Maybe that's why you try to get into a top residency program so that you are not forced to spend so much time on scut. After all, not everyone is complaining about scutwork, so there must be a huge variation between different programs. It should also vary across the specialties. If you don't want to deal with patients that much, then you should go into an appropriate field. You can't expect much isolation if you're in a field like psychiatry or PC. Many of us here choose a specific specialty because of this very same issue. You don't want to view your career as one long scutwork.well, what about hiring more people to do the scutwork so residents can focus on learning how to doctor. I'm sure most residents spend at least 20hrs/week on scut. For example, residents shouldn't be wasting their time making appointments for patients and never-ending social/dispo issues. Of course they won't do this, exploitation is so much easier.
What I am saying, is that if we had an efficient training system in the U.S. where residents aren't abused and forced to do meaningless scutwork, with 60-hours per week of ACTUAL HANDS-ON TEACHING/LEARNING, this would easily prepare us for independent practice.
Yeah, Fatkid is sort of right that it's all about the money, but not in the way he means it. Hospitals are willing to engage in teaching residents because residencies are a cash cow for the hospitals. But they aren't getting enough money per resident that it's worth it, as he seems to assume. It's only the money plus the labor makes it a good deal for them. Without the labor component no hospital would set up a residency -- it's not affordable when you factor in the insurance cost, administration, etc involved in shepherding a bunch of new MDs until they can operate nearly autonomously without killing people. It's not like residencies are funded with enough that the hospital can say sure, come in for 60 hours and we will teach you -- enjoy. Instead they get a pittance, and supplement it by the fact that this is very cheap labor. Many places would probably forego the residency funding and simply accept the labor, but not many places would do the other way round.
Where is the money coming from?
Many academic medical centers already operate in the red, without having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to hire mid-levels.
Maybe that's why you try to get into a top residency program so that you are not forced to spend so much time on scut.
Maybe that's why you try to get into a top residency program so that you are not forced to spend so much time on scut.....
Yea well this is because our healthcare system is screwed up and insurance companies gobble up all the money. Some hospital admins also make exhorbitant salaries. Clearly something needs to be done so money is going to the right places. Unfortunately I'm not that impressed with what Obama has to say so far.
If I have to learn how to make an appointment or call a consult for a patient when I go into private practice, I'm pretty sure I"ll be able to pick up those skills, in like, 20 seconds.
I talked to one of my friends in London who is doing anesthesiology/anaesthetics. He will be in residency for 10 years before he's allowed to practice on his own, and according to him, that's standard for over there. He's already finished 5 years, so I'll be done with my 4 years of anesthesia before he's done with his training.
As I understand it, their training salaries are significantly higher than hours, which softens one of the blows of having a longer residency.
Interesting, I've never talked to my friends about that. When my friend who's doing a pediatrics residency graduated 2 years ago, she was only paying £2500/year for tuition in London (and she was complaining it wasn't free), so they definitely don't have as much debt to worry about. I'll have to ask about all that stuff when I go back in a few months.
I would be perfectly okay with working a 60 hr/wk residency for 5 yrs (as it is done in many European countries) v. an 80 hr/wk residency for 3. I may be in the minority, but I kind of doubt it- many people are starting or already have families when beginning residency, and a 60 hr week would make this infinitely more manageable. I can't imagine many people with kids or planning to have them in residency preferring an 80 hr work week.
...
I do not believe they separated out the results by marital status, so perhaps it would be true that those with families would prefer the longer training although for the reasons you gave, as well as getting out into the salaried workforce, many would still likely prefer to keep training as short as possible, even if it means longer work hours per week.
I think it's a safe bet that the majority of folks with families would opt to get into the private sector sooner. Nobody with mouths to feed is going to be excited to extend a low paid residency for a few more hours per week.
If by "top" you mean places like Mayo, MGH, JHopkins, Cleveland Clinic, WashU, etc. I guarantee that they have far more "scut" than the "not-so-top" places.
That was my assumption as well, but Mistress S is arguing the opposite. Although I would hardly call the difference between 60 and 80 hrs per week as a "few", but is it worth an extra year or two?
Actually, I wasn't arguing the opposite- if you read my post, I specifically said I would endorse a longer residency as is commonly done in European countries provided I also had a similar debt load and salary as residents in those countries typically enjoy.
I fully agree that, under our current system, spending more time in a low-paying residency with interest mounting on our tremendous debt is not financially feasible for most people, all the more so for those with families to support. If, however, I could work 60 hrs/wk making >$80k/yr and with <$50k of debt to pay back and have to extend my residency by a couple of years in exchange, that would be an excellent and much more family-friendly alternative to our current system in my opinion. Some would no doubt still disagree, but I imagine many residents, particularly those with families, would prefer this as well.
Winged is right, residencies are longer in the UK/Europe. HOWEVER, what most people aren't looking up is that most students enter medical school straight from high school, entering into a 5 year medical program. This cuts off around 3 years off of your training before you get into residency.
Basically, they shifted the residency times to be longer in exchange for no college education. This simply cannot be done currently.
While you may see midlevels/techs/secretaries doing what you consider "scutwork", residents do need to do learn to do some of this because they cannot expect that they won't need those skills in practice. There is probably too much time wasted during residency doing these things, but IN THE REAL WORLD, attending physicians are doing this.