Shorter Residency Work Hours?

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

facetguy

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
3,581
Reaction score
11
Overall, cutting residency work hours a bit is seen as a good thing, right? There are enough errors that occur; errors due to exhaustion on the part of residents should be prevented whenever possible.

NEJM: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsb1005800

WSJ news: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325130511028968.html

Members don't see this ad.
 
Overall, cutting residency work hours a bit is seen as a good thing, right? There are enough errors that occur; errors due to exhaustion on the part of residents should be prevented whenever possible.

NEJM: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsb1005800

WSJ news: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325130511028968.html
I'm not sure we can say that. It really does come down to what the cut hours are used for....

Have we seen improved in-service examination scores to suggest more rest and study? Do we have evidence to show the 80hr/wk implementation circa 2002/3 has resulted in any decrease in errors over the ~half dozen years in effect?

Or, to put it a different way, cutting work/hospital/clinical experience hours and not replacing it with individual discipline/initiative to do self-study means decrease training. i don't think that formula will in anyway improve patient care and/or cut on errors.
NEJM said:
...Of added concern are reports suggesting that the 2003 limits did not increase residents' hours of sleep or reduce fatigue and that the added time created under the new standards is not being used by residents for reading and study. Most important, studies using national data samples failed to show that the duty-hour limits had a positive effect on the quality and safety of inpatient care...
That comes out of the second paragrah of one of the links you posted.
 
Last edited:
The work hour change is a funny concept. Many of the attendings I work with in the hospital (obviously in specialties other than mine) are consistently working 70-80 hour work weeks - and at times more than residents. One of my best friends works 7 days a week. That's right - 7 days a week - including taking his own call as a cardiologist.

Face it people - for those of you entering residency with the hopes and dreams of graduating as a specialist and opening your own private practice (or even joining an established one), you can expect to work increasingly more hours in the coming years. You will NEED to so to protect your income in light of decreased reimbursement and the need to see more patients to keep revenue up. You will also need to do so to protect your job from the increasing threat of non-physician competition.

For those of you entering primary care - unless you have planned on earning a comfortable $110k per year, expect to put in AT LEAST 70 hours a week on your own practice.

If it were me, I would want to work as many hours as possible during residency to get used to the real world...
 
The work hour change is a funny concept. Many of the attendings I work with in the hospital (obviously in specialties other than mine) are consistently working 70-80 hour work weeks - and at times more than residents. One of my best friends works 7 days a week. That's right - 7 days a week - including taking his own call as a cardiologist.

Face it people - for those of you entering residency with the hopes and dreams of graduating as a specialist and opening your own private practice (or even joining an established one), you can expect to work increasingly more hours in the coming years. You will NEED to so to protect your income in light of decreased reimbursement and the need to see more patients to keep revenue up. You will also need to do so to protect your job from the increasing threat of non-physician competition.

For those of you entering primary care - unless you have planned on earning a comfortable $110k per year, expect to put in AT LEAST 70 hours a week on your own practice.

If it were me, I would want to work as many hours as possible during residency to get used to the real world...

I think there needs to be a balance between doing what you need to do to learn what you need to know, and actually get enough sleep to be useful. I agree that we are probably in the right ballpark already with the 80 hour workweek, and the only advantageous change I see in the AAMC proposal is to shorten the 30 hour shift a bit (although 16 hours and the notion of naps and the like is just foolish IMHO.)

I think the prior poster hit it on the head in suggesting that the reduction to an 80 hour week really didn't do a great deal in terms of reducing errors, and the reasons are two-fold, (1) many people aren't using the freed up hours to sleep, but instead to have a life outside the hospital, and (2) more handoffs mean more errors, such that the more you reduce hours, the more you increase this kind of systemic error in its place.

Speaking as someone who came from another long houred career where working weekends and hitting the 80 hour mark was not that unusual, I think a lot of the complaining about hours being too oppressive are a bit overblown. I think they were too oppressive in the day when surgeons worked 120 hours/week routinely and did q3 call for long stretches. But those days have ended.

And FWIW, the 80 hour limitation was not created based on some evidence based study that errors from sleep deprivation were a problem, it was only enacted because a very vocal member of the media screamed for it after his daughter (who is suspected of having been mixing prescription and illegal drugs at a party) died and the resident was thrown under the bus by her hospital. I think the 80 hour limit probably sacrifices some degree of training, but seems to be a workable system, although per most studies has not shown the dramatic reduction of errors some were hoping for. Not too sure it needs to be reduced further without some scientific basis, which doesn't exist, or until the next daughter of a member of the media dies.
 
Honestly, in my opinion, any further cutting down of hours is VERY negative without actually changing the teaching styles of residencies. They need to be more committed to teaching or learn by practice basis before any hour cutting happens. The way it is now, the more paperwork or scutwork we can throw at you without complaining the "better" resident you are.

Applies to community hospitals more than university ones although they are saints either.
 
I'm going to enter the fray. Disclaimer: These are opinions supported by facts and experience, and are subject to disagreement/criticism.

1. Resident work hours can stay CLOSE to where they are as long as the thirty-plus-hour megashifts are eliminated. I find that after the 12th hour, I just don't care to learn anymore - I only care enough to make sure that nobody gets hurt. After all, we residents are human beings too - and we're in need of things like rest, sleep, food, companionship, love, etc. After hour (x), nobody benefits. The patients don't benefit because I'm too cooked... I don't benefit because I'm too cooked... the program doesn't benefit because... whatever. It just seems counterproductive to press on after a certain point.

2. I've got a few links to studies showing benefit to reduction in work hours/errors from overworking - but I'm not at my home computer right now. Search - "60 Hour Work Week Caps Coming" or something similar to find them.

3. If we have to work 80-plus hour weeks after residency to settle our debt/protect our income/insert fiscal reason here, then I feel comfortable in saying that 'the juice just isn't worth the squeeze' anymore - and we as a nation need to do something about the ridiculous cost of a professional education OR physician reimbursement OR both. See appropriate forum/thread for debate... but I'm just pointing out the obvious. None of us went a quarter million into the hole (and sacrificed 11+ years) to work eighty hours and make less than some finance major straight outta State U.
 
NinerNiner999: "get in the real world" LOL. Face it friend, residency is the real world. Working your butt off for peanuts, scraping by paycheck to paycheck, long hours away from your family, people disrespecting you and loving you. Patients saying they are grateful for your time, others spitting on you. Bills are due, laundry is piled up and the kids are hungry and/or sick. Your brakes are going out on your car but daycare is knocking for your dues. Half days for research are spent fixing that toilet that flooded your bathroom. Oh, and you're up for presentation tomorrow morning.....nothing big, you should be able to put it together in a few hours. Your white coat looks like a sex rag and that five o clock shadow has to go. Not real enough for you?
 
I'm really thrilled that I will be able to be the "intern" in the ICU as a PGY3 since these rules will take effect just in time for the intern to be protected from that.

Oh well. I've advocated for shorter hours for years. Guess it'll be time to put my money where my mouth is.
 
I'm really thrilled that I will be able to be the "intern" in the ICU as a PGY3 since these rules will take effect just in time for the intern to be protected from that. ...

LOL. I suggest those of us who are past the dreaded intern year lobby to up hours to 85. Helping out the poor interns to a situation better than we had it, at our expense somehow doesn't seem fair.:smuggrin:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
LOL. I suggest those of us who are past the dreaded intern year lobby to up hours to 85. Helping out the poor interns to a situation better than we had it, at our expense somehow doesn't seem fair.:smuggrin:

If this had a "like" option, I'd like this. :thumbup::laugh:

I was thinking with the nap time we should also institute snack time to make sure that the interns are well rested and fed.
 
Probably should give them "sippy cups" with the hospital logo during orientation since they are babying them so much under the new rules.

Don't forget the bibs!
 
Honestly, in my opinion, any further cutting down of hours is VERY negative without actually changing the teaching styles of residencies. They need to be more committed to teaching or learn by practice basis before any hour cutting happens. The way it is now, the more paperwork or scutwork we can throw at you without complaining the "better" resident you are.

Applies to community hospitals more than university ones although they are saints either.

The teaching system does need to be revamped but where will the money come from? It's all good and well to receive a 'teacher of the year award' from a group of residents which may help you minimally in getting promoted at some later point in time. That is assuming you survive your meeting where you need to explain how you happen to be short X number of wRVUs for the year.
 
I'm having a hard time digesting how many people - or perhaps even majority - seem to think anything less than 80hrs/week will result in inadequate teaching. C'mon folks, we're not just learning we're also working and performing. I know that the USA has an overly zealous work hours culture vs. rest of the world, but even so, 8ohrs is brutal and insane. I don't care what anybody says, "naps" or anykind of "sleep" you;re likely to get in the clinic is not restful sleep. Yes, I have been through 80hr plus periods, both in hospital and also in corporate. But in the latter, I could from time to time "choose" to do 80 and other times down to 40hrs. So I could balance myslef. But a constant 80+hr work week which is completely beyond one's control - one needs a very very stong constitution to put up with it. I think I was able to do the hopsital 80+ hrs but that was in my 20s. Now that I am much older, if I get anything less than 8hrs of solid sleep per night, I can survive for 2 days, on the 3rd I feel physically sick. At the end of the week I will have a cold.

As to the learning aspect - I leant more than 80% of what I learnt (I don't mean the theoretical learning) within the regular 8am-5pm hours rather than out of hours which make up the bulk of the 80hr week. OK, that excludes the ER learning.

And I won't even touch the increased errors debate. There may be an element of that, and yes it is very important too, but I don't have data and it isn't my primary point.

So in sum, I'm saying that my personal opinion is that that those long hours don't necessarily support "optimum" leaning and moreover are inhumane and wouldn't be acceptable in any other profession. Then why should they medicine - as long as a level of learning can be assured? When are folks going to lobby to change them (downward) again? Or will they ever?
 
My greatest fear is that further reductions in work hours will result in added years to residency. They've been talking about making peds and IM 4 years for a while now... a 56 hour week would be all the excuse they would need. Personally, having to be a resident for an extra year would not be worth cushy schedules.

Also, if residents may no longer be relied upon for work in the hospital, why would a hospital take money out of their tight budgets to hire us in the first place? They would instead hire PAs and NPs, at the expense of physicians... which seems to be the intention behind the increasingly onerous ACGME regulations to begin with.
 
My greatest fear is that further reductions in work hours will result in added years to residency. They've been talking about making peds and IM 4 years for a while now... a 56 hour week would be all the excuse they would need. Personally, having to be a resident for an extra year would not be worth cushy schedules.

Also, if residents may no longer be relied upon for work in the hospital, why would a hospital take money out of their tight budgets to hire us in the first place? They would instead hire PAs and NPs, at the expense of physicians... which seems to be the intention behind the increasingly onerous ACGME regulations to begin with.

All the issues you raise should be part of the overhaul and how the "better" system is constructed. It should be realized that NP/RN s are good for a certain function and that residents are for others, that they can't replace each other. And also perhaps it should be mandated how may residents each hospital "has" to train per year in order to keep their funding or credentials or something of the like. Many countries have this kind of system. So it's also a "duty" on part of the hospital and not a favor.

What's an extra year if that means you know you'll emerge a healthier person, less jaded, less worn out both psychologically and physically and better rounded doctor- but I'm not even saying lesser hours will/should result in an extra year. Oh and perhaps when the system is set up this way, residents would get more respect too..
 
NinerNiner999: "get in the real world" LOL. Face it friend, residency is the real world. Working your butt off for peanuts, scraping by paycheck to paycheck, long hours away from your family, people disrespecting you and loving you. Patients saying they are grateful for your time, others spitting on you. Bills are due, laundry is piled up and the kids are hungry and/or sick. Your brakes are going out on your car but daycare is knocking for your dues. Half days for research are spent fixing that toilet that flooded your bathroom. Oh, and you're up for presentation tomorrow morning.....nothing big, you should be able to put it together in a few hours. Your white coat looks like a sex rag and that five o clock shadow has to go. Not real enough for you?

Yes, very real yet no-not real enough. (BTW - I like the sex-rag coat LOL). Everything you mention above is true about residency - and life in general with any job, but from the perspective and mind-set of a resident. My point is that regardless of the hours you spend in residency learning, or the hours you spend as an attending practicing, you will spend 70-80 hours per week working from a different vantage point.

As a resident, you will be doing the majority of things (SCUT, patient follow-up, call, etc) FOR your attending, while learning in the process. As an attending, you will be doing EVERYTHING for YOUR practice, and putting the patient first at all times. It's funny how different things are when you're on cross-coverage in your 70th hour of the week for your fellow resident team, compared to when you're in the hospital at 10pm on Friday night for the quality committee meeting that your group is required to participate in for hospital privileges, only hoping the meeting gets out by 11 so you can finish rounding on your private practice patients you have admitted.

I agree wholeheartedly that the real world as you describe it exists in residency from your vantage point. I'm only suggesting that residents who graduate from their programs working less than they will as attendings will be in for a rude awakening, and may be underestimating the actual demands of private practice medicine. Further, I express concern that residents who graduate and plan to work less hours - no matter what - may erode further at the autonomy that we as physicians are already losing because they aren't prepared to / don't want to / simply can't tolerate working the hours needed to keep our profession open to private industry.

I do not have any data to back up these concerns, but I do hope that the residents in training now will take any free time in their week above their work-hour restrictions to educate themselves on the economics, political considerations, liability/tort reality, and other "non-clinical" aspects of medicine that are never taught in our medical schools or in our esteemed residencies, and will ultimately be the true sad loss of medical education in our country. I do not have this data because it has NEVER been compiled, and until we focus on the problem of medicine as a whole, from the beginning of our medical education and residency training, it will never be addressed. Look around - nobody in medicine is being threatened because they are giving good care (and I don't feel that shortening the work hours will dramatically impact your ability to learn your specialty). They are being threatened because all they focused on during their training is how to deliver that care - not the mechanics and infrastructure of how we economically deliver it.

To stay on topic, I would hope that residents who are being greeted with reduced work hours will embrace the OPPORTUNITY to learn beyond how to do things, but the multitude of reasons WHY we do things. Data from review of the 80-hour work week reduction has already demonstrated that residents are not studying or applying their free hours to eduction outside of the hospital. To the point, I am begging that the the new generations of graduating residents will focus on how to prevent the slippery slope of government regulation from eliminating our ability as professionals to practice for ourselves, autonomously, and without restriction or oversight FOR our patients. We work as residents with work hour reductions to ultimately work as residents for the government for the rest of our lives. Read that sentence again. The trade-off is our ability to practice with autonomy.

We are at a crossroads in our profession that transcends any work hours, tests, boards, rounds, call nights, or patients we care for. We are truly facing the demise of our ability to treat patients the way we want, and the way we deserve. I hope that each and every resident graduates and finds the job of their dreams and has the ability to help everyone the way that they want to - likely for the same reasons they went into medicine in the first place. Sadly, I fear a day will come when residents will graduate into mandated government servitude with regulations, guidelines, and fiscal oversight dictating their every move. I beg you all - plan on working no less than 80 hours per week in residency, even if 20 hours of it is at home learning about how to fix healthcare in this country. If we can't do it as physicians, then we as physicians will no longer have any direct say into how our patients are treated in the future.

Sorry for the length of this post - I just wish someone had told this to me before I started residency.
 
I say let this all happen. Most subspecialists and even most specialists don't understand how totally overworked they are in this country. 40-50 years of a person's life dedicated to the "betterment of humanity" is hardly worth the physical, emotional, and mental strain. I hate to say it, but the responsibility of continued health and self-improvement should be on our patient's and not us with the only logical outcome being yet another night away from our families and friends. Sometimes, we do God's work (or, whoever you do or don't believe in). Othertimes, I'm surprised that each of us is isn't struck down by lightening from above for saving that 98 y/o guy with 20 medical problems that comes in with a GI bleed. I'm sorry, but no human being in any hospital or in any corner of this accursed planet is more important than my wife or my parents. In fact, I would give up taking care of any given person in a heart beat if my wife was in trouble. It took residency for me to realize that.

A lifetime of servitude working for the government would be a blessed fate in this country. Likely four or five, ten to twelve hour shifts per week doing shift work with a probable government stipend to even go to school? We'd have to be foolish to refuse that inevitable outcome and people that work in urgent cares definitely understand and have seen the light. In fact, I'd take making a 70-100,000 dollars per year salary if that was the case and I'd do it with a big smile on my face. I can't believe the degree of neglect that our financial and personal infrastructure as physicians has suffered over the last few decades. It's like everybody just went to work everyday and as long as they got paid, life was good and the future would just take care of itself.

Everything that I've read above...all of that consists of many of the reasons that I'm personally contemplating leaving this profession to go into research. Or, better yet, take the IBR program and work as a zoo keeper or something. A lifetime of fresh breezes and sunny days instead of stiffling, vitamin D deficiency would be worth it.

\end ridiculous rant
 
My greatest fear is that further reductions in work hours will result in added years to residency. They've been talking about making peds and IM 4 years for a while now... a 56 hour week would be all the excuse they would need. Personally, having to be a resident for an extra year would not be worth cushy schedules...
...What's an extra year if that means you know you'll emerge a healthier person, less jaded, less worn out both psychologically and physically and better rounded doctor- but I'm not even saying lesser hours will/should result in an extra year...
I have heard these fears spouted by numerous residents of the "short residency" programs... and the longer programs. I have heard the short residency PDs talk about being unable to recruit if an additional 1-2 years is added onto training.....

That is all crap. "We" went through medical school and subsequently residency to be well trained physicians. This is not meant to be some hazing experience that gets you a certificate of completion if you survive and demonstrate endurance. This is about training and education. If you do 80hrs/wk for three years and much of those 80hrs are spent in a ~intellectually incapacitated state and/or you are not being taught, well, you missed the boat. It is time for individuals to wake up and get with modern understanding of education and learning. Fight for improvements in your education not the length of time. If the length is increased by a year, fight to ensure that year is not just another year of what we have. If your hours are decreased, fight to make sure the hours are used effectively... and take responsibility to apply yourself to study during your increased free time!

It is shameful to see folks choosing a specialty based on ~ease of training and/or length of training. It is shameful to see PDs so focused on duration of training over quality of training in order to recruit. Fields that recruit from populations that are seeking the easiest and/or shortest route are fields that will be full of mediocrity and/or incompetence. If your focus is on duration and hours, you really, IMHO should be looking at another career. These are peoples lives and they should not be dependent on physicians looking for shortcuts in their training.

Our knowledge in general is expanding and ever increasing. The volumes one must learn to participate in a professional field is increasing. Look at the numbers of people taking more then 4yrs to obtain a "four year" degree. We should not hold medical training hostage to a traditional ~length. So, as the knowledge and requirements increase, we should just start adding up hours after 9, 10, 12, 24? to meet the "education" needs and still complete within a certain time frame? Does that really make sense?
 
...I know that the USA has an overly zealous work hours culture vs. rest of the world, but even so, 8ohrs is brutal and insane....
So in sum, I'm saying that my personal opinion is that that those long hours don't necessarily support "optimum" leaning and moreover are inhumane and wouldn't be acceptable in any other profession. Then why should they medicine - as long as a level of learning can be assured? When are folks going to lobby to change them (downward) again? Or will they ever?

Um, not only are they acceptable in any other profession, they are pretty much the norm for most professionals. Lawyers routinely break the 80 hour mark. So do folks in finance. So does the CEO at a midsized company. So does the POTUS. You are acting like nobody else in the world is asked to work 80 hours/week. You have to take your head out of the sand and realize that young up and comers in competitive professional fields are going to work their share of late nights and weekends. And these are people who don't have "training" incorporated into their schedule. Now, I would say that residency is a bit worse because of the loss of control over the schedule, and loss of flexibility, and few people work 30 hours in a row in other professions. If I wanted to show up an hour later in law or take a longer lunch break, and make it up on the weekend, I could -- you cannot really do that in residency, but in a billable hour system, they don't really care when you do your hours. But you are being foolish if you think residency is the only field that is working these "inhumane" hours or that other fields find these "unacceptable". In fact, with the 80 hour cap, residents now get away with a lot fewer hours than junior folks in some professional/white collar fields. That's part of the problem with a system where folks are coming out of 4 years of college and 4 years of med school and never having worked in a professional field before and are making judgments about what is "inhumane". If you'd been out there you would see that this is really just a more regimented version of the same. The young hungry financial analyst on Wall Street, and the fellow trying to make partner at a midtown Manhattan law firm, are each going to be working more hours than you are. They will get paid a lot more, "taught" a lot less. And they will not have the same kind of structured schedule you have, with set rounding times, sign outs, call schedules. But they will probably average 85 hours/week while you average 75. And yet somehow your hours are "inhumane". They are long hours sure, but they are the norm for young upcoming professionals.
 
Last edited:
My greatest fear is that further reductions in work hours will result in added years to residency. They've been talking about making peds and IM 4 years for a while now... a 56 hour week would be all the excuse they would need. Personally, having to be a resident for an extra year would not be worth cushy schedules.

Also, if residents may no longer be relied upon for work in the hospital, why would a hospital take money out of their tight budgets to hire us in the first place? They would instead hire PAs and NPs, at the expense of physicians... which seems to be the intention behind the increasingly onerous ACGME regulations to begin with.

If they reduce hours below a certain threshold, then yes there will be pushes to increase the years of residency. It is not acceptable in the profession for folks to come out of residency poorly trained, and you simply won't have done as many procedures or be as good/comfortable with them if you spent 30-40% fewer hours in residency. Cutting down hours cuts down directly on what you will have seen/done. And it is untenable for most physicians to think that the next generation coming out of residency won't be able to jump right in and be attendings at a comparable level as the prior generation. That won't work.

There is no ACGME goal to increase the numbers of NPs/PAs. That is simply the unfortunate consequence of having an overburdened healthcare system with too many patients and too few providers. Adjusting residency hours doesn't really help this, but in general, hospitals haven't yet hired midlevels over residents for this reason... So far. The ACGME is not really considering the impact of hospitals at all, as best I can tell.
 
The teaching system does need to be revamped but where will the money come from?...
...As a resident, you will be doing ...FOR your attending...
It's already being mispent at teaching centers!
...There is no ACGME goal to increase the numbers of NPs/PAs. That is simply the unfortunate consequence of having an overburdened healthcare system with too many patients and too few providers. Adjusting residency hours doesn't really help this, but in general, hospitals haven't yet hired midlevels over residents for this reason... So far. The ACGME is not really considering the impact of hospitals at all, as best I can tell.
There have been several comments about NPs & PAs in one form or another in reference to the work hours. This is the reality.....

Community physicians/attendings will often make more then the majority of their academic counterparts. The teaching centers & academic centers are excessively bloated and innefficient because they are subsidized. Large and small community healthcare systems without residencies do not have a cadre of ~paid for employees. Yet, most make a profit.

Residents in accredited programs are almost universally the only funded/subsidized employees in a hospital. The fears of needing PAs & NPs and not being able to afford it is ludicrous. Academia fails to enact modern teaching practices to increase education or even good business practices.... because they don't have to do it. before folks continue to speak of the lack of affordibility of shorter hours and such, why don't we start looking at real, financially viable economic/business models that function without the sometimes MILLIONS of dollars of resident funding each year....
 
JackADeli, I agree.

Law2Doc, I agree with the majority with what you're explaining about professionals in law, finance, etc. But there is a difference. It's not the "norm" for them, in the sense that it is mandated. It is an option for them. Yes, it is very common, but still optional. I have many friends in finance and law who don't work theose hours and they are at various levels in their career. And I'm talking big corporations. Goldman, JP morgan, Citi and Fortune Top 50 company lawyers. The ones that do that do it because they are ambitious, want to climb the ladder faster, make more money etc etc. It's a choice. And more importantly, it's not continous. They may have periods of days or weeks or let's say a month that goes by as such becuase of a particular project but not necessarily a whole year. And yes, as you say, they can control their longer lunch hour, coming in later in the day etc etc. And they get rewarded for the extra they put in.
Very differrent to residency.
I also worked in a Fortune Top 50 company many years and did the 12 hour work days for some periods. But I still think it's different and that a "legislated and mandated" 80 hr week and 24+6 hr days are inhumane.
 
JackADeli, I agree.

Law2Doc, I agree with the majority with what you're explaining about professionals in law, finance, etc. But there is a difference. It's not the "norm" for them, in the sense that it is mandated. It is an option for them. Yes, it is very common, but still optional. ...

"Optional" depends on the beholder, I guess. In this economy, if you bill lots of hours, you may move up in the company/firm. If you don't bill lots of hours, they will frequently replace you with someone who will. Doesn't matter that you know people at various stages in their careers who didn't get the axe (yet). In TODAY'S economy, many who don't push the envelop in fact do get the axe. So sure, it's optional, just like quitting your residency is also always optional. But nobody takes the career killing option.

In biglaw, they set "minimum" billable hour requirements. You far exceed those year after year, you could have a long and successful career. You hit the minimum for a year, you probably will be let go, or at least get a stern talking to. I knew people who were let go because they didn't keep up with the rest of the pack, despite always meeting established minimums. It's too easy to find someone who will work harder for the same salary these days. So sure, it's "optional" but it's really not. Life is very similar in IB/finance, although they have measures somewhat different than billable hours. Certainly the folks I've known who were "laid off" in those fields took advantage of things being "optional" as you described. And were quickly replaced with folks who had loftier career goals.

It's sort of like the movie Office Space, where the restaurant employees are expected to express themselves with minimum "pieces of flare" they have to wear. It's "optional", but if you don't exceed the minimum you get a talking to, and are not viewed positively by the boss. Other fields work exactly that way - that was a great metaphor for law firm billable hours. They create a minimum, and you are welcome to "express yourself" above that minimum, but lord help you if you ever hit that minimum. So sure, it's "optional" in the same way that career suicide is always "optional". Doesn't make it all that different than residency in that pulling your weight there is also theoretically "optional". As is not renewing your contract.
 
One problem I have with work hours limits only being applied to residents in training is that it is based on the premise that, as a result of being in training, residents are idiots. and therefore work hours limits should only be applied to residents. (Ok some are...but then so are some attendings)

Residency is a progressive learning thing. It doesn't take very long for most interns to get up to speed and know enough to at least keep patients alive until help arrives. It's a gradual progression- what you are learning in first month of intern year is different than what you are learning first month of the last year. I would submit that most residents aren't making serious errors simply because they are in training after the first couple months.

Attendings aren't immune from making errors due to fatigue. And if fatigue is truly a major cause of errors, then work hour limits should apply across the board- to attendings, residents, midlevels. (I'm NOT advocating this, BTW, just observing how targeting one group of providers doesn't make sense)
 
Law2Doc,
My point about optional is that you don't "have" to do the hours to be or to become a lawyer or a financier. You can set up your own law practice or own hedge fund and work at your own pace, or you work in a certain department of financial institutions where you still make the high 6 six figures but does not require the hours. Yes, those finance positions do exist and they won't get the axe just because they work around 50hrs/week. e.g. quants or risk management. Whereas with residency you have to do the hours otherwise you won't get licensed and you can't be/become a doctor. Am I wrong?
 
I don't know, you seem like a VERY hard worker Law2Doc, but you would probably be the exception rather than the norm when you say that 80 hours a week is normal.

I don't know many people aside from doctors that work 80 weekly hours continuously. Some of my contacts in other professional fields work 50 hours or sometimes 60 hours a week but that is their absolute high. And they are complaining a lot when working that amount.

I agree with this. I am friends with several lawyers, all of whom do quite well for themselves, and only one of them ever approaches the 80 hr/week mark and he only does so for 1-2 months a year. No one's saying L2D didn't work 80 hours a week as a lawyer, but that is definitely not necessary or the norm for lawyers, at least around here.
 
It should be kept in mind that lawyers bill by the hour and are not above padding their hours. I'm not joking when I say this.
 
I don't know, you seem like a VERY hard worker Law2Doc, but you would probably be the exception rather than the norm when you say that 80 hours a week is normal.

I don't know many people aside from doctors that work 80 weekly hours continuously. Some of my contacts in other professional fields work 50 hours or sometimes 60 hours a week but that is their absolute high. And they are complaining a lot when working that amount.

It really depends on what they are doing. Simply throwing out 50-60 hours is basically meaningless, since the vast majority of jobs that aren't highly paid average in the 40-50 range.
However, Law2doc is right when he says that young professionals in other highly paid industries are working 80 hour weeks. My group of friends were all business school, and the vast majority went into finance and consulting. If I ever complained to them about working 80 hours a week, they'd probably think I was joking.
Investment bankers pull 80 hours a week on a LIGHT week, and about 120 when there are multiple pitches going on simultaneously. Private equity is comparable, and average in the 80-100 range.
Consultants average around 70 hours, not including the time spent traveling, which can easily tack on 10-15 hours a week.
And whoever said it was "optional" is deluded. It's not just the "gunners" who are pulling these hours. It's everyone. If your ass isn't in the office before the MD gets there and after the associate leaves, you're done. You can go do corporate finance for Target, and pull $60k.
Residency obviously isn't a piece of cake, but anyone who knows anything about prestigious professions outside medicine would realize that everyone is working their asses off out there. And with the exception of certain surgical specialties, attendings have FAR cushier jobs than their finance, consulting, or corporate law counterparts.
 
Law2Doc,
My point about optional is that you don't "have" to do the hours to be or to become a lawyer or a financier. You can set up your own law practice or own hedge fund and work at your own pace, or you work in a certain department of financial institutions where you still make the high 6 six figures but does not require the hours. Yes, those finance positions do exist and they won't get the axe just because they work around 50hrs/week. e.g. quants or risk management. Whereas with residency you have to do the hours otherwise you won't get licensed and you can't be/become a doctor. Am I wrong?

Set up your own hedge fund? Haha. Not only is it ridiculously difficult to start up a fund, but once you do, the hours aren't 50-60/week. I'll admit that certain hedge funds are cushier on the hours, but those are usually established quant funds. You really can't compare yourself to those guys, unless you've got a brain like a computer. I only know a couple guys from Harvard, who were smart enough to get hired by quant funds.

And what financial institutions are you talking about that would pay you "high 6 figures" without working you 80-100 hours a week? I would really like to know, cuz I'd be missing out. I've never heard of risk management paying high 6 figures for entry or mid level positions.
 
I wouldn't disagree with the statement that other people are working as many hours as physicians. But I would disagree with the assumption (if there was one) that this means that their 80 hours are equivalent. If I was working in business or consulting, sure, I might get told, "oh, by the way, you're working late this week." But then I'd just stay there and work late on research or number crunching. Versus the medical field, where you are randomly called at any time of day or night for any issue. Those are two different animals.

It really is different, for example, studying for a test overnight versus doing an overnight call. That's analogous, in my opinion. I'm not dumping on other professions, but that's how I see it.
 
By the way, this also ignores the fact that when I'm on call, maybe I don't eat, maybe I don't use the bathroom, maybe I don't sleep. Or maybe I do all of those. But when an investment banker works late, they definitely get time to eat, for example. It might be take out, but they just keep doing paperwork in between eating. Like I said, the difference between their hours and ours is not just in terms of length worked.
 
By the way, this also ignores the fact that when I'm on call, maybe I don't eat, maybe I don't use the bathroom, maybe I don't sleep. Or maybe I do all of those. But when an investment banker works late, they definitely get time to eat, for example. It might be take out, but they just keep doing paperwork in between eating. Like I said, the difference between their hours and ours is not just in terms of length worked.

Yeah, that's true. I rather pull 80 as a banker than 80 as a resident. Though, when the hours get into the 100+ range for the banker, it'd be a tough call.
I remember when my banking buddies were 1st and 2nd year analysts, and they'd often call me after staying up 2-3 nights in a row. One dude maxed out at 140 hours after his MD crushed him 4 nights in a row with a couple of deals and a few more pitches. Good thing after that superhuman week, he landed a "cushier" job in private equity, where he can now work 80-100.
 
All the above several posts make good point re why the other professions hours aren't comparable if and when they are long too. But beside all of those, the bottom line is that they are still optional. They don't have to do it in order to practice whatever that profession is. Whereas a resident must do the hours in order to become licensed. This, in my opinion is where the injustice and inhumaneness of the resident hours legislation comes in.
 
But they will probably average 85 hours/week while you average 75. And yet somehow your hours are "inhumane". They are long hours sure, but they are the norm for young upcoming professionals.

One difference is that training in medicine is longer than that for other fields. The typical resident is several years older than the typical upcoming young financial professional and 1-2 years older than the typical starting lawyer.

It gets harder to keep up the long hours as you get older
 
All the above several posts make good point re why the other professions hours aren't comparable if and when they are long too. But beside all of those, the bottom line is that they are still optional. They don't have to do it in order to practice whatever that profession is. Whereas a resident must do the hours in order to become licensed. This, in my opinion is where the injustice and inhumaneness of the resident hours legislation comes in.

Again, it's not optional. It's only optional if you don't care for your job - just like in residency. If you don't care to remain as a resident, then you, too, can pick and choose how many hours you work. Saying that other professionals can remain somewhere in the financial or law industry is just semantics, since obviously, you can still remain in the "health care" industry if you drop residency for nursing.
 
Also; nobody's going to sue the pants off of an investment banker for misplacing some paperwork after his seventieth hour of work. If I drop a lung placing an IJ because I'm exhausted and tremulous from hypoglycemia... well...

I was talking to a few MS-3s the other day that were all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. One of them asked me the - "if I had to do it all over again, would I" question, or the related - "what would it take for you to walk away" question. The answer was: pay my debt and let me go. There are better ways to make good honest money without the risk of frivolous lawsuits, dirty needlesticks, eighty-hour workweeks, and the resultant loss of my soul after sacrificing so much to serve my fellow man only to watch him crucify me in one way or another.

I wouldn't complain so much if we MD/DOs were appreciated. Whenever a patient gets upset over ridiculous detail x or doesn't think that he needs y... I think to myself - "Do you have a better idea/solution? G'head... go fix yourself. Did you go to medical school? No? Hmm...I did. Now shut up and take your medicine. It'll save your life."

Instead of appreciation, we get litigation. I have half a mind to let the public just up and suffer/die until they figure out that they have no idea what they're doing.
 
Um, not only are they acceptable in any other profession, they are pretty much the norm for most professionals. Lawyers routinely break the 80 hour mark. So do folks in finance. So does the CEO at a midsized company. So does the POTUS.
Suddenly "most professionals" are now lawyers, CEOs and the President of the United States of America. MOST professionals do not work anywhere near 80 hours/week. A select group of a select group of professions do. There are folks in finance in Des Moines as well as Wall Street, but I'm going to go ahead and guess that they're not working quite as long of hours, but the residents in Des Moines are working as much as the residents in NYC. Most of my friends in finance, engineering, accounting, business, and other fields are coming pretty far short of 80 hours/week. They're not investment bankers on Wall Street, but that's exactly the point.
 
Suddenly "most professionals" are now lawyers, CEOs and the President of the United States of America. MOST professionals do not work anywhere near 80 hours/week. A select group of a select group of professions do. There are folks in finance in Des Moines as well as Wall Street, but I'm going to go ahead and guess that they're not working quite as long of hours, but the residents in Des Moines are working as much as the residents in NYC. Most of my friends in finance, engineering, accounting, business, and other fields are coming pretty far short of 80 hours/week. They're not investment bankers on Wall Street, but that's exactly the point.

... he obviously means professions who, for the most part, are in the same income bracket. If you want to earn in the top 10 or less percent of the population, working hard isn't an option - it's the underlying assumption. But, if you want to pull $25k a year, hell, you can go be a nurse and work part time.
 
Again, please residents, get off of your entitled high horses. Stop screaming about the injustice of learning your field for 3-7 years voluntarily, and look at the BIG PICTURE. You signed up for this, you knew residency was hard (and probably harder) when you agreed to start medical school, and now you're all whining about it.

Name one other field where you can work like a dog for a short time, and be guaranteed a minimum raise of 4 times your salary when its over. Then again, if whining about inhumane choices is the current status of medicine, I suppose the lottery winning of finishing residency will become a thing of the past. I can't wait for all of you to start whining about that. You're physicians - not bankers dining on $900 dinners and billing celebrity clients, not Lawyers pandering to politicians and attending fundraisers for their personal advancement. Everything you do is for your patients, and the sooner you can buck up and do your jobs without complaining about how bad it is for you, the sooner you'll realize how bad it is for your patients, and before you know it, residency will be over.

BTW - in this climate of poor economy and jobs loss, its pretty poor form for the "leaders" of our society to be complaining about having too much work, epecially in light of life after residency. We're all lucky to have jobs.
 
Again, please residents, get off of your entitled high horses. Stop screaming about the injustice of learning your field for 3-7 years voluntarily, and look at the BIG PICTURE. You signed up for this, you knew residency was hard (and probably harder) when you agreed to start medical school, and now you're all whining about it.

Name one other field where you can work like a dog for a short time, and be guaranteed a minimum raise of 4 times your salary when its over. Then again, if whining about inhumane choices is the current status of medicine, I suppose the lottery winning of finishing residency will become a thing of the past. I can't wait for all of you to start whining about that. You're physicians - not bankers dining on $900 dinners and billing celebrity clients, not Lawyers pandering to politicians and attending fundraisers for their personal advancement. Everything you do is for your patients, and the sooner you can buck up and do your jobs without complaining about how bad it is for you, the sooner you'll realize how bad it is for your patients, and before you know it, residency will be over.

BTW - in this climate of poor economy and jobs loss, its pretty poor form for the "leaders" of our society to be complaining about having too much work, epecially in light of life after residency. We're all lucky to have jobs.

Please stop with the "Think of the patient!" routine. No one wants to hear that self righteous BS.

We may have signed up for this when we started medical school, but to be honest, once you rack up 100K in loans by your med 2 year, you're pretty much locked into being a physician for better or worse.

You're correct when you say that medicine is unique in that people will work like dogs in residency for a few years and then earn 4 times their salary. What you fail to mention is that with that newly minted physicians have the very big privilege of dealing with ungrateful and demanding patients who will sue you into oblivion over the smallest slight, even if malpractice hasn't even occurred. Throw in a healthy dose of fear of communicable diseases like TB, Hep C, HIV and radiation exposure from various procedures and suddenly that salary doesn't seem to great.

As to residents feeling lucky for having a job. Maybe I'll sound like a prick, but I'm not grateful for having a job. I'd damn well better have had one after pouring years of my life into medical school and having huge loans shackle me down. And other residents/graduating medical students should feel the same sense of entitlement.

Yeah, I do things for my patients. But my responsibility is to myself first, even before them.
 
We may have signed up for this when we started medical school, but to be honest, once you rack up 100K in loans by your med 2 year, you're pretty much locked into being a physician for better or worse.

As an aside, everyone seems to talk about being locked into medicine because of the debt, but I don't necessarily agree with that. At this point, you could enroll in income-based repayment and wait out the 25 years until you have your loans forgiven. Not exactly a great situation, but if you really disliked medicine, it's certainly an option.
 
..As to residents feeling lucky for having a job. Maybe I'll sound like a prick, but I'm not grateful for having a job. I'd damn well better have had one after pouring years of my life into medical school and having huge loans shackle me down. And other residents/graduating medical students should feel the same sense of entitlement...
Which is probably part of the problem. Not necessarily you, but plenty of individuals feel an entitlement without adequate effort. Life at all levels requires effort beyond just passing or completing a program. I see too many high school students that believe they are entitled to a college education because they have a diploma. I see too many college/university grads that believe they are entitled to a job upon graduation. I now see too many medical school grads feeling entitled to the next step.... At each stage I hear cries of how unfair things are.
"It is unfair I didn't get into Ivy this.... I was a really good person and had ok grades....".
"It is unfair I didn't get into medical school.... I worked hard in college, got ok grades and volunteered at the shelter.... MCATS are not a fair indicator"
"It is unfair he/she earns more then me"
etc, etc, etc.....
 
Please stop with the "Think of the patient!" routine. No one wants to hear that self righteous BS.

We may have signed up for this when we started medical school, but to be honest, once you rack up 100K in loans by your med 2 year, you're pretty much locked into being a physician for better or worse.

You're correct when you say that medicine is unique in that people will work like dogs in residency for a few years and then earn 4 times their salary. What you fail to mention is that with that newly minted physicians have the very big privilege of dealing with ungrateful and demanding patients who will sue you into oblivion over the smallest slight, even if malpractice hasn't even occurred. Throw in a healthy dose of fear of communicable diseases like TB, Hep C, HIV and radiation exposure from various procedures and suddenly that salary doesn't seem to great.

As to residents feeling lucky for having a job. Maybe I'll sound like a prick, but I'm not grateful for having a job. I'd damn well better have had one after pouring years of my life into medical school and having huge loans shackle me down. And other residents/graduating medical students should feel the same sense of entitlement.

Yeah, I do things for my patients. But my responsibility is to myself first, even before them.
Yes, there are crappy aspects of medicine, but what profession doesn't? There are no perfect jobs out there. At the end of the day, you'll still have a high paying job relatively cushy job that won't be affected by the tides of the economy.
If for any reason, you decide to leave medicine, remember that there are 10 qualified people waiting in line just to have a chance to take your place.
 
Again, it's not optional. It's only optional if you don't care for your job - just like in residency. If you don't care to remain as a resident, then you, too, can pick and choose how many hours you work. Saying that other professionals can remain somewhere in the financial or law industry is just semantics, since obviously, you can still remain in the "health care" industry if you drop residency for nursing.

Actually, if you drop out of internship, you really can't easily remain in the health care industry. Becoming a nurse would require additional training. If you drop out of internship, you pretty much have the same job options as any other college graduate- in this economy making 20K a year as a Starbucks barrista. On the other hand, a lawyer who quits his first job may not have a good career, but he probably could get a 40 hr/week job, perhaps with the gov, paying 35-40K + benefits.
 
One difference is that training in medicine is longer than that for other fields. The typical resident is several years older than the typical upcoming young financial professional and 1-2 years older than the typical starting lawyer.

It gets harder to keep up the long hours as you get older

Not really. In law you are an associate for 7-10 years before you may make partner (the law equivalent of an attending). Before that you are an associate "training" for the next step. In banking you may hold various analyst type positions for X years in hopes of being promoted to Managing Director (the IB equivalent of attending). Prior to that you are also the equivalent of "in training". The only real difference is the pay -- otherwise you are working hard to move to the next level in all scenarios. I promise you the lawyer 7 years out of law school on the verge of making partner and logging 80 hours/week feels every bit his age just as the surgery resident in his 5th year of surgery residency.
 
Top