Why are 24 hr shifts a thing?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
It was pre-meds who kept saying incredibly long working hours in residency were a bad idea, and condescending pricks like you who kept insisting it was a good thing. And we all know how that worked out.
Being a pre-med doesn't automatically make me incorrect, just as being a doctor doesn't automatically make you correct.

Pity you clearly never studied logic in undergrad.

I see this attitutude a lot these days. I begin to wonder if it's part of the culture of our generation or if it's a more timeless pattern of youth that I'm only observing as I begin to get a bit older.

This comment isn't specifically aimed at the poster I'm replying to as much as to all pre-meds or pre-whatever's. Being a bright person is wonderful, but it isn't a substitute for experience or knowledge.

The people you are talking with spend a substantial part of every day living in a hospital. They have done so for years. You lack the context to make an informed contribution to any ongoing debate. It results in a dozen threads spanning hundreds of messages trotting out the same tired, ill-informed ideas.

When you are forming an opinion from a small fragment of poorly substantiated knowledge you will make the same conclusions and inevitable ridiculous assertions as prior posters. It isn't that you are stupid, or that you aren't worthwhile, it's that you are inexperienced and will likely make the same cognitive errors as your predecessors.

Like being in love, losing your virginity, or experiencing a market downturn I have no idea how to explain to you what it means or feels like to be a resident. It's more responsibility than I've ever had and it's only a tiny inkling of the responsibility of an attending.

if you want advice or if you want to advance an idea to be assessed by your peers/possible mentors, that's great. I don't care about that. But at least pretend to have a grain of humility when talking to people who have worked and lived what you have only experienced in theory. That's all I'd ask, and my only real contribution to the thread. Goodnight
 
Yeah, that's always been the excuse of these things. Here's the problem: that defense is garbage: Medical Residents, Misplaced Pride and Saner Hours
TLDR version:


That looks like an opinion piece, a doc's perception of the effects of duty hours. There's data. The writer of that article cited most of the relevant data, then went on to basically say "but I still don't like it so it's bad."

With the 80 hour work week and 16 hour cap rules (the 2011 rules): Overall no improvement in patient outcomes, but "some studies suggest increased complication rates in high-acuity patients." No improvement in resident wellness, no improvement in resident education. Performance on certification exams declined in some specialties (i.e. shorter work hours = less experience = potentially fewer people passing the boards). Personally, I'd rather work an 80 hour work week and be done in 3 years than work a 60 hour work week and be done in 4 years.
A Systematic Review of the Effects of Resident Duty Hour Restrictions in Surgery: Impact on Resident Wellness, Training, and Patient Outcomes
Effect of Duty Hour Reform on Surgery Residents

So what's your solution?
 
That looks like an opinion piece, a doc's perception of the effects of duty hours. There's data. The writer of that article cited most of the relevant data, then went on to basically say "but I still don't like it so it's bad."

With the 80 hour work week and 16 hour cap rules (the 2011 rules): Overall no improvement in patient outcomes, but "some studies suggest increased complication rates in high-acuity patients." No improvement in resident wellness, no improvement in resident education. Performance on certification exams declined in some specialties (i.e. shorter work hours = less experience = potentially fewer people passing the boards). Personally, I'd rather work an 80 hour work week and be done in 3 years than work a 60 hour work week and be done in 4 years.
A Systematic Review of the Effects of Resident Duty Hour Restrictions in Surgery: Impact on Resident Wellness, Training, and Patient Outcomes
Effect of Duty Hour Reform on Surgery Residents

So what's your solution?

Good God. Read son.
A Systematic Review of the Effects of Resident Duty Hour Restrictions in Surgery: Impact on Resident Wellness, Training, and Patient Outcomes
Effect of Duty Hour Reform on Surgery Residents
MMS: Error
 
You just linked the same 2 articles I did and another that has similar results.
"In conclusion, flexible duty-hour policies for surgical residents were noninferior to current ACGME duty-hour policies with respect to patient outcomes. Residents’ satisfaction regarding their overall well-being and education quality was similar in the flexible-policy and standard-policy groups."

If you're trolling, I recommend you stop, as it is against TOS.
You must have grown up picking cherries. That, or you were never taught how to properly analyze research. Clearly I'll have to do it for you since you read two sentences from one study and think you have a grasp on the issue.
You state "24 hour shifts are used to provide continuity of care, because the more handoffs there are, the higher the risk for error. Programs that have q3, q4, etc call can provide more continuous care to patients with fewer handoffs, therefore reducing errors."
If you had actually read the systematic review, you would have found the data does not support that notion.
You have a strange interpretation of the flexible-policy findings. What that showed is that we can have these dreaded handoffs and shift limits without the parade of horribles you and so many others present. What WAS higher in the flexible-policy group was a negative effects on personal activities, which is tied to a host of issues from mental to burnout. Given that there don't appear to be patient harms, the only reason to switch is because you believe it's better for residents, and it's hard to think that's true. Further, asking the residents what they think may not be the best way of determining that's the case.
Summary: handoffs and reduced hours don't have the ill effects everyone says it does, AND it allows doctors to better manage their personal lives, which makes for happier and less suicidal physicians.
The attitude of equating suffering with greatness and "I did it so you have to do it too" needs to stop.
 
You must have grown up picking cherries. That, or you were never taught how to properly analyze research. Clearly I'll have to do it for you since you read two sentences from one study and think you have a grasp on the issue.
You state "24 hour shifts are used to provide continuity of care, because the more handoffs there are, the higher the risk for error. Programs that have q3, q4, etc call can provide more continuous care to patients with fewer handoffs, therefore reducing errors."
If you had actually read the systematic review, you would have found the data does not support that notion.
You have a strange interpretation of the flexible-policy findings. What that showed is that we can have these dreaded handoffs and shift limits without the parade of horribles you and so many others present. What WAS higher in the flexible-policy group was a negative effects on personal activities, which is tied to a host of issues from mental to burnout. Given that there don't appear to be patient harms, the only reason to switch is because you believe it's better for residents, and it's hard to think that's true. Further, asking the residents what they think may not be the best way of determining that's the case.
Summary: handoffs and reduced hours don't have the ill effects everyone says it does, AND it allows doctors to better manage their personal lives, which makes for happier and less suicidal physicians.
The attitude of equating suffering with greatness and "I did it so you have to do it too" needs to stop.

There were studies that showed that there were negative patient outcomes. There was no overall change in resident wellness or satisfaction. I have read multiple studies on this as I was going to be directly affected by the new changes that took place this year.

I am exiting this discussion with you as it is clear you are unable to carry out a professional discourse without slinging insults. Learn a little humility, it'll go far.
 
Let's come at this from your perdepctive. We need 24 hour shifts because if we don't have them we won't make as much money, correct?
Not at all, that is one of many reasons.

But that's neither here nor there. If I'm wrong about 24 hour shifts then I want you to propose a better system.
 
There were studies that showed that there were negative patient outcomes. There was no overall change in resident wellness or satisfaction. I have read multiple studies on this as I was going to be directly affected by the new changes that took place this year.

I am exiting this discussion with you as it is clear you are unable to carry out a professional discourse without slinging insults. Learn a little humility, it'll go far.

I do actually think it is an interesting point that the randomized trial shows no difference in patient outcomes.

The reaction from many surgeons was - "see, 24 hour shifts are better!"

But that's not what it means. It means that patient outcomes were not inferior.

My interpretation of that is twofold:
1) we should be prospectively evaluating duty hour changes that might impact patient care before we enact them, no enacting changes and then retrospectively trying to figure out if they have helped or harmed patients.
2) if the impact on patients is net even between two different sets of duty hour regulations (which largely seems to be the case here), we should then be able to select the paradigm that is best for resident education and satisfaction. That will likely be different across different specialties, as the training needs of a psychiatrist are very different from those of an anesthesiologist, etc.
 
if the impact on patients is net even between two different sets of duty hour regulations (which largely seems to be the case here), we should then be able to select the paradigm that is best for resident education and satisfaction. That will likely be different across different specialties, as the training needs of a psychiatrist are very different from those of an anesthesiologist, etc.

It seems like overall there was at best no change in resident education, and in some cases an apparent decline as indicated by a decrease in performance, but there seems to be a decrease in satisfaction. At least anecdotally, I have never met someone who would rather work 6 16s ad nauseum. So I agree with you, but it seems like the new rules didn't really benefit anyone so much as they didn't negatively impact them for the most part. Not sure that's a good enough reason to switch.
 
I do actually think it is an interesting point that the randomized trial shows no difference in patient outcomes.

The reaction from many surgeons was - "see, 24 hour shifts are better!"

But that's not what it means. It means that patient outcomes were not inferior.

My interpretation of that is twofold:
1) we should be prospectively evaluating duty hour changes that might impact patient care before we enact them, no enacting changes and then retrospectively trying to figure out if they have helped or harmed patients.
2) if the impact on patients is net even between two different sets of duty hour regulations (which largely seems to be the case here), we should then be able to select the paradigm that is best for resident education and satisfaction. That will likely be different across different specialties, as the training needs of a psychiatrist are very different from those of an anesthesiologist, etc.
Isn't point 2 there pretty much what the new ACGME rules were trying to get it?
 
I have done night float and 24+. The longer shifts leave you tired for sure but I greatly prefer it. Having the next day off is very nice, especially if you have a quiet night.

Lol at the premed trying to tell us what's up. Logically fallacies lmao
And don't underestimate the Golden Weekend.

Despite being just crushingly tired, I actually did more things outside of the hospital my intern year because I had at least 1 full weekend off per month.
 
I have done night float and 24+. The longer shifts leave you tired for sure but I greatly prefer it. Having the next day off is very nice, especially if you have a quiet night.

Lol at the premed trying to tell us what's up. Logical fallacies lmao

Appeal to non-authority ftw.
 
You guys do realize that most jobs are 40 hours a week in the US with weekends off, and can be less in Europe. That was due in large part by unionization by workers, who protested the unsafe and inhumane working conditions.

It's not that the patients require 24 hour care by one person. It's not because it is safe for a doctor to be awake 24 hours. Keep drinking that Kool-Aid the administrators give you. You think it is acceptable for a truck driver to practice their profession routinely driving on the highways for 24 hours straight? Would you let any of your family members do this? Driving a truck is much more simple than admitting sick patients from the ER.

Some hospitals are already making the shift and are hiring hospitalist staff to cover the night. If you were a patient, you would want a fresh doctor to cover you/admit you/perform surgery on you at night, not an overworked, exhausted bleary-eyed physician who is prone to making a mistake by breaking scrub/ordering the wrong medication/signing out inappropriately.

The real reason why there is such a thing as 24 hour shifts (or longer) is that either the hospitals don't want to take the expense to hire staff at night because of greed or ignorance (residents to rely on), or there is simply no money to pay for additional physician staffing. Already attendings depend on residents to man the trenches while they sleep at home and take "call" by answering a phone call from their resident. Hospitals depend on cheap resident labor to cover the hospital at night to recruit attendings to their institutions. The government has no interest in providing extra funding for residents and very arguably attendings too. I have a friend who is an ER attending who gets reimbursed $12 for placing an IV by ultrasound in a dialysis patient with no veins, a procedure that is not easy to do. You can sell a t-shirt for more than $12. These rates are pretty typical across the board for our profession.

When physicians are generate less money, administrations can't hire as many physicians. But shifts need to be covered, and physicians can't unionize for bargaining power, so administrations exploit that fact while they still can. The easiest group to exploit are young doctors, who haven't received a full license and can't practice independently, and can't unionize. Their case is also hurt by doctors who think it is okay to work these shifts routinely, and their arguments I discuss below.

There are arguments that say long shifts are good for decreasing sign-out errors, that long shifts are good for training. I can also make a study that shows that driving your car less leads to less accidents on the road. But you need to drive places, and sleep and time off from work is a basic human need. Improve your sign out, instead of having inhumane work hours. Likewise for training purposes, this is also a straw man argument. Medicine is a lifelong learning experience, and you learn better when you get enough sleep. You undoubtedly interact better with patients too.

People also forget that the less attractive our profession becomes, the less talented people will aspire to become physicians. What intelligent young student will incur so much debt and sacrifice of their social life to routinely work 24+ hour shifts? They will go work for Google instead.

Doctors are people too. People need to sleep to be healthy. When you don't sleep, you neglect your health, and this can lead to all sorts of consquences. Whether the old dinosaurs of medicine and/or willing participants in the pyramid scheme of medical labor admit it or not.
 
You guys do realize that most jobs are 40 hours a week in the US with weekends off, and can be less in Europe. That was due in large part by unionization by workers, who protested the unsafe and inhumane working conditions.

It's not that the patients require 24 hour care by one person. It's not because it is safe for a doctor to be awake 24 hours. Keep drinking that Kool-Aid the administrators give you. You think it is acceptable for a truck driver to practice their profession routinely driving on the highways for 24 hours straight? Would you let any of your family members do this? Driving a truck is much more simple than admitting sick patients from the ER.

Some hospitals are already making the shift and are hiring hospitalist staff to cover the night. If you were a patient, you would want a fresh doctor to cover you/admit you/perform surgery on you at night, not an overworked, exhausted bleary-eyed physician who is prone to making a mistake by breaking scrub/ordering the wrong medication/signing out inappropriately.

The real reason why there is such a thing as 24 hour shifts (or longer) is that either the hospitals don't want to take the expense to hire staff at night because of greed or ignorance (residents to rely on), or there is simply no money to pay for additional physician staffing. Already attendings depend on residents to man the trenches while they sleep at home and take "call" by answering a phone call from their resident. Hospitals depend on cheap resident labor to cover the hospital at night to recruit attendings to their institutions. The government has no interest in providing extra funding for residents and very arguably attendings too. I have a friend who is an ER attending who gets reimbursed $12 for placing an IV by ultrasound in a dialysis patient with no veins, a procedure that is not easy to do. You can sell a t-shirt for more than $12. These rates are pretty typical across the board for our profession.

When physicians are generate less money, administrations can't hire as many physicians. But shifts need to be covered, and physicians can't unionize for bargaining power, so administrations exploit that fact while they still can. The easiest group to exploit are young doctors, who haven't received a full license and can't practice independently, and can't unionize.

There are arguments that say long shifts are good for decreasing sign-out errors, that long shifts are good for training. I can also make a study that shows that driving your car less leads to less accidents on the road. But you need to drive places, and sleep and time off from work is a basic human need. Improve your sign out, instead of having inhumane work hours. Likewise for training purposes, this is also a straw man argument. Medicine is a lifelong learning experience, and you learn better when you get enough sleep. You undoubtedly interact better with patients too.

People also forget that the less attractive our profession becomes, the less talented people will aspire to become physicians. What intelligent young student will incur so much debt and sacrifice of their social life to routinely work 24+ hour shifts? They will go work for Google instead.

Doctors are people too. People need to sleep to be healthy. When you don't sleep, you neglect your health, and this can lead to all sorts of consquences. Whether the old dinosaurs of medicine and/or willing participants in the pyramid scheme of medical labor admit it or not.

Cognitive bias much?
 
You guys do realize that most jobs are 40 hours a week in the US with weekends off, and can be less in Europe. That was due in large part by unionization by workers, who protested the unsafe and inhumane working conditions.

It's not that the patients require 24 hour care by one person. It's not because it is safe for a doctor to be awake 24 hours. Keep drinking that Kool-Aid the administrators give you. You think it is acceptable for a truck driver to practice their profession routinely driving on the highways for 24 hours straight? Would you let any of your family members do this? Driving a truck is much more simple than admitting sick patients from the ER.

Some hospitals are already making the shift and are hiring hospitalist staff to cover the night. If you were a patient, you would want a fresh doctor to cover you/admit you/perform surgery on you at night, not an overworked, exhausted bleary-eyed physician who is prone to making a mistake by breaking scrub/ordering the wrong medication/signing out inappropriately.

The real reason why there is such a thing as 24 hour shifts (or longer) is that either the hospitals don't want to take the expense to hire staff at night because of greed or ignorance (residents to rely on), or there is simply no money to pay for additional physician staffing. Already attendings depend on residents to man the trenches while they sleep at home and take "call" by answering a phone call from their resident. Hospitals depend on cheap resident labor to cover the hospital at night to recruit attendings to their institutions. The government has no interest in providing extra funding for residents and very arguably attendings too. I have a friend who is an ER attending who gets reimbursed $12 for placing an IV by ultrasound in a dialysis patient with no veins, a procedure that is not easy to do. You can sell a t-shirt for more than $12. These rates are pretty typical across the board for our profession.

When physicians are generate less money, administrations can't hire as many physicians. But shifts need to be covered, and physicians can't unionize for bargaining power, so administrations exploit that fact while they still can. The easiest group to exploit are young doctors, who haven't received a full license and can't practice independently, and can't unionize. Their case is also hurt by doctors who think it is okay to work these shifts routinely, and their arguments I discuss below.

There are arguments that say long shifts are good for decreasing sign-out errors, that long shifts are good for training. I can also make a study that shows that driving your car less leads to less accidents on the road. But you need to drive places, and sleep and time off from work is a basic human need. Improve your sign out, instead of having inhumane work hours. Likewise for training purposes, this is also a straw man argument. Medicine is a lifelong learning experience, and you learn better when you get enough sleep. You undoubtedly interact better with patients too.

People also forget that the less attractive our profession becomes, the less talented people will aspire to become physicians. What intelligent young student will incur so much debt and sacrifice of their social life to routinely work 24+ hour shifts? They will go work for Google instead.

Doctors are people too. People need to sleep to be healthy. When you don't sleep, you neglect your health, and this can lead to all sorts of consquences. Whether the old dinosaurs of medicine and/or willing participants in the pyramid scheme of medical labor admit it or not.
Most of the fields still doing 24 hour calls are either specialized enough that its hard to get extra bodies OR are procedural. In the latter case, its been well documented that continuity of care makes a big difference. For cognitive-only stuff - hospitalists, ICU, ID, neuro, and so on its not as important and so you are seeing more shift work. But if you get operated on Friday night, you definitely want the same surgeon checking on you the next morning.

Now that being said, there often just aren't enough doctors to fully staff everything that needs staffing at the levels we often need. In my current location, it takes about 2 years to get a new pulmonologist. So let's say that tomorrow all the pulmonologists in town decide that they aren't going to do overnight call anymore. To keep their clinic functioning at current levels while providing sufficient inpatient coverage, the city as a whole would need at least 3 additional pulmonologists to make that happen. So best case, they might be able to do that in 6 years assuming no one leaves. They will also get a salary cut as each pulmonologist will be seeing fewer patients since they will be working less.

As for your nonsensical argument about losing smart people to Google? Ridiculous. We graduate over 25,000 residents a year. That's 25,000 people every year who are going to earn 6 figures. Google employes a total of only 57,000 employees with starting salaries around 110k. So every 3 years we graduate more new doctors than Google's entire work force and they all come out earning more, several times more in many cases.
 
As for your nonsensical argument about losing smart people to Google? Ridiculous. We graduate over 25,000 residents a year. That's 25,000 people every year who are going to earn 6 figures. Google employes a total of only 57,000 employees with starting salaries around 110k. So every 3 years we graduate more new doctors than Google's entire work force and they all come out earning more, several times more in many cases.

There are a lot of competitive industries for smart people these days. Google is only one company in tech. There are competitive salaries (6 figures) in other industries for intelligent, motivated people who are capable of being accepted into medical school. Also, you make that salary at Google coming out of college and/or a Master's program. You having extensive company benefits, including a retirement plan and getting stock compensation in Google. You don't take 24+ hour call or holidays and work fewer hours. Plenty of other benefits which I won't go into, but really my point is to say the competition is alive and well for young intelligent talented people.
 
There are a lot of competitive industries for smart people these days. Google is only one company in tech. There are competitive salaries (6 figures) in other industries for intelligent, motivated people who are capable of being accepted into medical school. Also, you make that salary at Google coming out of college and/or a Master's program. You having extensive company benefits, including a retirement plan and getting stock compensation in Google. You don't take 24+ hour call or holidays and work fewer hours. Plenty of other benefits which I won't go into, but really my point is to say the competition is alive and well for young intelligent talented people.
Then why are med school applicants continuing to increase with better grades every year?

Beyond that, medicine is a much safer bet than 99% of jobs out there. If you matriculate to a US medical school, you have something like a 95% chance of ending up a board certified physician. Sure its a delayed salary, but its much more likely to yield a good payoff than pretty much anything else.
 
A premed arguing with and insulting a physician admin. Yeah, that gets points across very nicely. Lol

I think that dude is suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect, especially with gems of posts like these:

You must have grown up picking cherries. That, or you were never taught how to properly analyze research. Clearly I'll have to do it for you since you read two sentences from one study and think you have a grasp on the issue.
You state "24 hour shifts are used to provide continuity of care, because the more handoffs there are, the higher the risk for error. Programs that have q3, q4, etc call can provide more continuous care to patients with fewer handoffs, therefore reducing errors."
If you had actually read the systematic review, you would have found the data does not support that notion.
You have a strange interpretation of the flexible-policy findings. What that showed is that we can have these dreaded handoffs and shift limits without the parade of horribles you and so many others present. What WAS higher in the flexible-policy group was a negative effects on personal activities, which is tied to a host of issues from mental to burnout. Given that there don't appear to be patient harms, the only reason to switch is because you believe it's better for residents, and it's hard to think that's true. Further, asking the residents what they think may not be the best way of determining that's the case.
Summary: handoffs and reduced hours don't have the ill effects everyone says it does, AND it allows doctors to better manage their personal lives, which makes for happier and less suicidal physicians.
The attitude of equating suffering with greatness and "I did it so you have to do it too" needs to stop.

Dunning-Kruger-Effect.png
 
A 3-time re-applicant arguing with and insulting physicians....how oblivious can one be. I think there is a bit of resentment being released in this thread.

A question for the attendings in the thread from an M1: what schedule (for the residents) do you find best for balancing resident well-being and ensuring adequate resident education? Does our current system allow for enough teaching time?
 
After observing decades of shift changes and signouts, both among physicians and nurses, and seeing how much work actually gets done during these times, I would say they are a necessary evil. ICU patient circling the drain? "Oh but we're in the middle of signout."

The fewer the better.
 
There are a lot of competitive industries for smart people these days. Google is only one company in tech. There are competitive salaries (6 figures) in other industries for intelligent, motivated people who are capable of being accepted into medical school. Also, you make that salary at Google coming out of college and/or a Master's program. You having extensive company benefits, including a retirement plan and getting stock compensation in Google. You don't take 24+ hour call or holidays and work fewer hours. Plenty of other benefits which I won't go into, but really my point is to say the competition is alive and well for young intelligent talented people.

Hate to burst your bubble, but both the guys I personally know who work for Google have to be on call overnight. (CompSci PhDs both making well over 6 figures).
 
Surgeon I was working with the other morning said something that stuck with me: "I don't actually mind being called in all Sunday and then having to be there Monday morning. I mean, realistically other than playing with my kids...what else would I rather be doing than operating?"

You've gotta want it.
 
I have a friend who is an ER attending who gets reimbursed $12 for placing an IV by ultrasound in a dialysis patient with no veins, a procedure that is not easy to do. You can sell a t-shirt for more than $12.

Of all the dumb things in this post, the failure of understanding of basic economics is the thing that stands out the most.
 
Personally, I'd rather work an 80 hour work week and be done in 3 years than work a 60 hour work week and be done in 4 years.

Those are not the options. Residencies are not 3 years long and 80 hour per week because 11520 hours is the exact amount of time you need to be a competent internal medicine physician. They're 3 years of 80 hour weeks because that's the most indentured servitude they have gotten anyone to agree to yet. If we limited the work week to 60 hours per week, and refused to stand for more, then 3 years of 60 hours weeks would be ehat we would need to be competent. On the other hand if residencies thought they could get away with it they would try to add a 4th year of training, and then a 5th, for the same diploma (see: hospitalist fellowships).

No one in academic medicine really thinks you need anywhere near the training you have received to be competent for independent practice. The same academic attendings and administrators who mourn your poor work ethic in residency are always more than happy to offload their remaining work onto NPs. They certainly don't care about continuity when it's time for THEM to go home. You work this hard because it makes someone else money, don't try to make it into some kind of grand plan.
 
Last edited:
Those are not the options. Residencies are not 3 years long and 80 hour per week because 11520 hours is the exact amount of time you need to be a competent internal medicine physician. They're 3 years of 80 hour weeks because that's the most indentured servitude they have gotten anyone to agree to yet. If we limited the work week to 60 hours per week, and refused to stand for more, then 3 years of 60 hours weeks would be ehat we would need to be competent. On the other hand if residencies thought they could get away with it they would try to add a 4th year of training, and then a 5th, for the same diploma (see: hospitalist fellowships).

No one in academic medicine really thinks you need anywhere near the training you have received to be competent for independent practice. The same academic attendings and administrators who mourn your poor work ethic in residency are always more than happy to offload their remaining work onto NPs. They certainly don't care about continuity when it's time for THEM to go home. You work this hard because it makes someone else money, don't try to make it into some kind of grand plan.
There is absolutely no way that's true, so I'm going to have to demand proof. And the mid-level thing is unrelated as they are supervised while residency grads are not once they are done.
 
There is absolutely no way that's true, so I'm going to have to demand proof. And the mid-level thing is unrelated as they are supervised while residency grads are not once they are done.
You can be as dismissive as you want, but the main proof is the midlevels, who are supervised only in the most technical, legalistic sense of the term. No one is reading their charts while the patients are still in the hospital/clinic, and no physician 'supervisor' has the ability to fire a mid-level unless they own the clinic the mid-level works in. Even in the 50% of states where they can't practice under their own license legally, they are effectively practicing independently. If attendings really thought you needed 3 full years of residency training to be safe they wouldn't collaborate in that kind of care.

The second proof is that no one in academic medicine cares enough about this training to make themselves/their colleagues get it, if they weren't forced to get it in the first place. For everything from residency to fellowships to MOC they are grandfathered in. Everyone needs a hospitalist fellowship, unless they graduated before hospitalist fellowships.

The final proof is that the training isn't even internally consistent. To be a Pediatrician you need to train for 3 years. 3 years of what? It barely matters. 3-12 months of clinic. 2-7 months of NICU. 5-18 months of wards. They only have the vaguest idea of what you need, but they are sure you need exactly 3 years of it. That's a pretty good sign they believe not so much in the training as in the idea that you should serve out a term of indenture.
 
You can be as dismissive as you want, but the main proof is the midlevels, who are supervised only in the most technical, legalistic sense of the term. No one is reading their charts while the patients are still in the hospital/clinic, and no physician 'supervisor' has the ability to fire a mid-level unless they own the clinic the mid-level works in. Even in the 50% of states where they can't practice under their own license legally, they are effectively practicing independently. If attendings really thought you needed 3 full years of residency training to be safe they wouldn't collaborate in that kind of care.

The second proof is that no one in academic medicine cares enough about this training to make themselves/their colleagues get it, if they weren't forced to get it in the first place. For everything from residency to fellowships to MOC they are grandfathered in. Everyone needs a hospitalist fellowship, unless they graduated before hospitalist fellowships.

The final proof is that the training isn't even internally consistent. To be a Pediatrician you need to train for 3 years. 3 years of what? It barely matters. 3-12 months of clinic. 2-7 months of NICU. 5-18 months of wards. They only have the vaguest idea of what you need, but they are sure you need exactly 3 years of it. That's a pretty good sign they believe not so much in the training as in the idea that you should serve out a term of indenture.
Umm, what?

Midlevels are irrelevant to the discussion. And even if they weren't, they are not equivalent to us. You're a pediatrician: do you truly believe that in a single day there is an NP that can round on inpatients, see mildly sick babies in the nursery, and spend a half day in clinic? Because that's what your training prepares you for. I've worked with a good half dozen NPs at this point and none of them came close to being as good at even basic general outpatient medicine as I am and that's the easy part of our training.

I don't know much about MOC in other specialties, but in mine there is no grandfathering in. So while I'm not a huge fan, there at least isn't any hypocrisy about the whole thing. The unneeded fellowship thing seems to be mostly a pediatric issue. I don't see the IM folks setting up one of those. Nor do I see them really doing any useless fellowships. So maybe the problem isn't as universal as you think it is.

Lastly, are you seriously trying to tell me that there aren't pretty strict curriculum rules for a pediatric residency? Because literally the 2nd google result for "acgme pediatrics requirements" gave me a PDF file dated July 1 2017 that spells out in some detail the curriculum (I'll highlight the key points):

The curriculum should be organized in educational units. (Core)
IV.A.6.a).(1) An educational unit should be a block (four weeks or one month) or a longitudinal experience. (Core)
IV.A.6.a).(1).(a) An outpatient educational unit should be a minimum of 32 half-day sessions. (Detail)
IV.A.6.a).(1).(b) An inpatient educational unit should be a minimum of 200 hours. (Detail)
IV.A.6.b) The overall structure of the program must include: (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(1) a minimum of six educational units of an individualized curriculum; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(1).(a) The individualized curriculum must be determined by the learning needs and career plans of each resident and must be developed through the guidance of a faculty mentor. (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(2) a minimum of 10 educational units of inpatient care experiences, including: (Core)

IV.A.6.b).(2).(a) inpatient pediatrics; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(2).(a).(i) There must be five educational units.
(Detail)

IV.A.6.b).(2).(a).(ii) No more than one of the five required educational units should be devoted to the care of patients in a single subspecialty. (Detail)

IV.A.6.b).(2).(b) neonatal intensive care; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(2).(b).(i) There must be two educational units.
(Detail)

IV.A.6.b).(2).(c) pediatric critical care; and, (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(2).(c).(i) There must be two educational units.
(Detail)

term newborn care. (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(2).(d).(i) There must be one educational unit. (Detail)


IV.A.6.b).(3) a minimum of nine educational units of additional subspecialty experiences, including: (Core)

IV.A.6.b).(3).(a) adolescent medicine; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(a).(i) There must be one educational unit.
(Detail)

IV.A.6.b).(3).(b) developmental-behavioral pediatrics; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(b).(i) There must be one educational unit
. (Detail)

IV.A.6.b).(3).(c) four educational units of four key subspecialties from the following subspecialties: (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(c).(i) child abuse; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(c).(ii) medical genetics; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(c).(iii) pediatric allergy and immunology; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(c).(iv) pediatric cardiology; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(c).(v) pediatric dermatology; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(c).(vi) pediatric endocrinology; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(c).(vii) pediatric gastroenterology; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(c).(viii) pediatric hematology-oncology; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(c).(ix) pediatric infectious diseases; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(c).(x) pediatric nephrology; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(c).(xi) pediatric neurology; (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(c).(xii) pediatric pulmonology; or, (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(c).(xiii) pediatric rheumatology. (Core)

IV.A.6.b).(3).(d) three additional educational units consisting of single subspecialties or combinations of subspecialties. (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(d).(i) These should consist of experiences from either the list above or from the following:
child and adolescent psychiatry; (Detail)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(d).(i).(b) hospice and palliative medicine; (Detail)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(d).(i).(c) neurodevelopmental disabilities; (Detail)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(d).(i).(d) pediatric anesthesiology; (Detail)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(d).(i).(e) pediatric dentistry; (Detail)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(d).(i).(f) pediatric ophthalmology; (Detail)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(d).(i).(g) pediatric orthopaedic surgery; (Detail)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(d).(i).(h) pediatric otolaryngology; (Detail)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(d).(i).(i) pediatric rehabilitation medicine; (Detail)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(d).(i).(j) pediatric radiology; (Detail)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(d).(i).(k) pediatric surgery; (Detail)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(d).(i).(l) sleep medicine; or, (Detail)
IV.A.6.b).(3).(d).(i).(m) sports medicine. (Detail)

IV.A.6.b).(4) a minimum of five educational units of ambulatory experiences, including: (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(4).(a) ambulatory experiences to include elements of community pediatrics and child advocacy; and (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(4).(a).(i) There must be two educational units.
(Detail)

IV.A.6.b).(4).(b) pediatric emergency medicine and acute illness. (Core)
IV.A.6.b).(4).(b).(i) There must be three educational units of pediatric emergency medicine, at least two of which must be in the emergency department. (Detail)
IV.A.6.b).(4).(b).(ii) Residents must have first-contact evaluation of pediatric patients in the emergency department. (Detail)


IV.A.6.b).(5) a minimum of 36 half-day sessions per year of a longitudinal outpatient experience. (Core)

So if we add up the 5 units of inpatient peds, 2 units of NICU, 2 units of PICU, 1 newborn nursery, 1 adolescent med, 1 developmental peds, 4 primary subspecialties, 3 secondary subspecialties, 2 units of clinic, 3 units of ER/urgent care we're up to 24 units which is either 24 months or 96 weeks (1.85 years) depending on how your program is set up. So basically 2/3rd of a peds residency is set in stone. But you're right, there's obviously no consistency to a pediatric residency. They are all only 2/3rds identical.
 
Midlevels are irrelevant to the discussion. And even if they weren't, they are not equivalent to us. You're a pediatrician: do you truly believe that in a single day there is an NP that can round on inpatients, see mildly sick babies in the nursery, and spend a half day in clinic? Because that's what your training prepares you for. I've worked with a good half dozen NPs at this point and none of them came close to being as good at even basic general outpatient medicine as I am and that's the easy part of our training.

Whether or not I believe that they can, I know that they do all of those things, and they do it without meaningful supervision. They see clinic, they see inpatients, they round on nurseries, they see undifferentiated patients in the ED, and they do it all under the technical but not actual supervision of the attendings and administrators that insist that 4 years of medical school isn't nearly enough. This isn't unique to Pediatrics, I have seen the same thing on the adult floors as well at multiple civilian hospitals, and multiple private clinics.

Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. You will never find an academic attending that SAYS that a single 24 hour shift of residency isn't necessary, but they will happily sign on to allow midlevels without any of that training to practice without meaningful supervision if it profits them. I am not making a statement one way or the other about whether or not midlevels actually are qualified to do those things, but anyone who works as an attending or administrator in a residency program AND works with an effectively independent mid-level is hypocritical about something. Since that's most residency program I have seen I will conclude that, based on my sample, most residency programs are hypocritical and are working you to death for fun and profit.
 
They see clinic, they see inpatients, they round on nurseries, they see undifferentiated patients in the ED

Just because they do doesn't mean they should. Mid level training is obviously not good enough to prepare them for this as they order more tests, consult far more, and have identical outcomes only when their patients are fewer and healthier. So clearly there is something to residency training.
 
A 3-time re-applicant arguing with and insulting physicians....how oblivious can one be. I think there is a bit of resentment being released in this thread.

A question for the attendings in the thread from an M1: what schedule (for the residents) do you find best for balancing resident well-being and ensuring adequate resident education? Does our current system allow for enough teaching time?

For your question, I liked the night float system much better than qX amount of call. At least I had a time when I knew I'd be able to leave--with other call in surgery, you stay until work is done, so routinely I'd be finishing consults etc...but night floaters are more protected since they are returning to work "the same day." However, the alteration in sleep and zombie like feelings on weekends were not good. I think it should be up to the program to look at their own state and determine which type of call works best. Having taken every type of call as a resident, I can say I genuinely don't care...the one thing I can say is that I lived through the interns doing 24h shifts and then the 16 hour shifts...and I can say they definitely were not as competent when they became second years. Much of what I learned was learned alone at night on those 24h....
 
the one thing I can say is that I lived through the interns doing 24h shifts and then the 16 hour shifts...and I can say they definitely were not as competent when they became second years. Much of what I learned was learned alone at night on those 24h....
I actually think this is confusing the problem. The issue is the need to be 'alone at night', which can happen with or without the 24. There is no question that residents have a huge learning curve that happens the first night that their support network is truly out of the hospital, and the rule that Interns always needed to have a senior in house definitely changed the progression of residency. I'm not convinced it made for a worse final product, but it definitely made for much shakier R2s.
 
I actually think this is confusing the problem. The issue is the need to be 'alone at night', which can happen with or without the 24. There is no question that residents have a huge learning curve that happens the first night that their support network is truly out of the hospital, and the rule that Interns always needed to have a senior in house definitely changed the progression of residency. I'm not convinced it made for a worse final product, but it definitely made for much shakier R2s.
I agree that being alone at night can happen with or without the 24, but it's much rarer with a 16h shift. I say this as someone who used to actually make schedules for the residents. It is difficult to arrange everyone so they meet the 80h rule, and to boot, I could never put an intern on Saturdays because that was 24h call and they could only work 16 hours at a time. So they never got to see all the trauma that came from all the Saturday parties to our level 1.
 
I agree that being alone at night can happen with or without the 24, but it's much rarer with a 16h shift. I say this as someone who used to actually make schedules for the residents. It is difficult to arrange everyone so they meet the 80h rule, and to boot, I could never put an intern on Saturdays because that was 24h call and they could only work 16 hours at a time. So they never got to see all the trauma that came from all the Saturday parties to our level 1.

Did you guys not do night float blocks? We would do 2 week blocks of night float with one day off per week (usually a weekday). It worked out to the same number of nights, over residency, as during the old call schedule. They were just all in a row.
 
Did you guys not do night float blocks? We would do 2 week blocks of night float with one day off per week (usually a weekday). It worked out to the same number of nights, over residency, as during the old call schedule. They were just all in a row.
We did a combo, but the night float team could not work on weekends due to scheduling and them needing to have time off, so weekends were covered by those who were not on night float.
 
You can be as dismissive as you want, but the main proof is the midlevels, who are supervised only in the most technical, legalistic sense of the term. No one is reading their charts while the patients are still in the hospital/clinic, and no physician 'supervisor' has the ability to fire a mid-level unless they own the clinic the mid-level works in. Even in the 50% of states where they can't practice under their own license legally, they are effectively practicing independently. If attendings really thought you needed 3 full years of residency training to be safe they wouldn't collaborate in that kind of care.

I have been working with "mid-levels", initially nurse clinicians and now nurse practitioners for well over 30 years in numerous hospitals. Your statement about lack of supervision except in a technical, legalistic sense does not describe my experience or what I have seen, in any NICU, at any time. Your experience may have been different, but your broad generalization is inconsistent with my experience. As far as firing them, sure, physicians do not fire nurses, that's true almost anywhere in a hospital in-patient environment, but an incompetent nurse practitioner as reported by multiple attendings with clear evidence, will not likely keep their job.
 
I have been working with "mid-levels", initially nurse clinicians and now nurse practitioners for well over 30 years in numerous hospitals. Your statement about lack of supervision except in a technical, legalistic sense does not describe my experience or what I have seen, in any NICU, at any time. Your experience may have been different, but your broad generalization is inconsistent with my experience. As far as firing them, sure, physicians do not fire nurses, that's true almost anywhere in a hospital in-patient environment, but an incompetent nurse practitioner as reported by multiple attendings with clear evidence, will not likely keep their job.

FWIW there are only 2 environments where I have seen true, consistent supervision of midlevels: surgical services and intensive care units. Of course, I have seen residency trained internists and Pediatricians work in ICUs with the exact same supervision, so that really doesn't do much to prove that midlevels are not being treated equivalently to residency trained physicians. They just not being treated like fellowship trained physicians. Yet.
 
Same. Not sure who in their right mind would rather work 6 days a week just to avoid being tired a couple days a week.

My concern is that call can be discriminatory. I know many residents who suffer from medical problems who get a LOT worse if you asked them to work 24 hours in a row rather than 13. I knew one person who lost her surgery residency because of it: she had atypical migraines and reliably started vomiting, nonstop, at hour 18 of her shift. She was otherwise a great resident, and as an attending it would have been completely reasonable for her to schedule herself for no more than 18 hours, but she was never allowed to be an attending because you can't get through surgical training without working 28 hours in a row (she switched to EM and did extremely well). I knew several other migraine afflicted docs who weren't quite that bad but just had to accept being in debilitating pain every fourth day when they were on call.

13 hour shifts feel worse but they're more universally accessible.
 
My concern is that call can be discriminatory. I know many residents who suffer from medical problems who get a LOT worse if you asked them to work 24 hours in a row rather than 13. I knew one person who lost her surgery residency because of it: she had atypical migraines and reliably started vomiting, nonstop, at hour 18 of her shift. She was otherwise a great resident, and as an attending it would have been completely reasonable for her to schedule herself for no more than 18 hours, but she was never allowed to be an attending because you can't get through surgical training without working 28 hours in a row (she switched to EM and did extremely well). I knew several other migraine afflicted docs who weren't quite that bad but just had to accept being in debilitating pain every fourth day when they were on call.

13 hour shifts feel worse but they're more universally accessible.

First, I'm sorry for your friend. But how can she predict that as an attending surgeon she wouldn't have days where she needed to work 18+ hours? Even as an OR tech, I've experienced that on a call weekend when we were really slammed.

That does suck though. I hope she was able to find a specialty she could enjoy.

Edit: I'm not sure that all discrimination like that is bad. Do you want your surgeon to have to call someone else in because she starts vomiting in the middle of your case?
 
No one in academic medicine really thinks you need anywhere near the training you have received to be competent for independent practice. The same academic attendings and administrators who mourn your poor work ethic in residency are always more than happy to offload their remaining work onto NPs. They certainly don't care about continuity when it's time for THEM to go home. You work this hard because it makes someone else money, don't try to make it into some kind of grand plan.


As an anesthesiologist in private practice for 21 years I disagree. Newly graduated anesthesiologists and surgeons are generally not as slick and adept as those with several years experience. Are the new grads competent? Generally yes. But a few are marginally able to practice independently. They don't have the unconscious competence that experienced physicians have where things become second nature. One could make the argument that training should be longer. As a general rule I wouldn't choose a surgeon or anesthesiologist with less than 5 years of practice under their belt and 10 years is better. Just what I've seen. You need to have your ass handed to you a few times in real life to learn not to do stupid s***.

And the work doesn't stop once you finish residency. There are no duty hours restrictions for attendings. There are weeks in PP where I work harder than I ever did as a resident.
 
Last edited:
Of all the dumb things in this post, the failure of understanding of basic economics is the thing that stands out the most.

The fact that you take a metaphor and use it to criticize the argument shows the closed-mindedness of this member. Not that I really need to explain the idea that services are undervalued to anyone who has been in the field, but I guess you really do need to go revisit that high school economics class.

Or maybe you are really just an idiot and thought "well gee, sure you can sell t-shirts for $12, but they cost $1 to make, so really you would only be making $11 profit, so he is wrong that you can make more money selling t-shirts than placing IV's by ultrasound because $12 is greater than $11!" Buddy, it really has nothing to do with t-shirts. It's just the concept. Sorry I had to make that painfully obvious for everyone else.

Also, are you trying to suggest that call at Google is anything like call for residents (who take the brunt of 24 hour shifts)?

I'm just baffled by the concept that people consider 16s to be any better than 24s.

The amount of ignorance, lack of empathy, and self-congratulatory back-slapping on behalf of a few members is appalling.
 
Last edited:
The fact that you take a metaphor and use it to criticize the argument shows the closed-mindedness of this member. Not that I really need to explain the idea that services are undervalued to anyone who has been in the field, but I guess you really do need to go revisit that high school economics class.

Or maybe you are really just an idiot and thought "well gee, sure you can sell t-shirts for $12, but they cost $1 to make, so really you would only be making $11 profit, so he is wrong that you can make more money selling t-shirts than placing IV's by ultrasound because $12 is greater than $11!" Buddy, it really has nothing to do with t-shirts. It's just the concept. Sorry I had to make that painfully obvious for everyone else.

Also, are you trying to suggest that call at Google is anything like call for residents (who take the brunt of 24 hour shifts)?



The amount of ignorance, lack of empathy, and self-congratulatory back-slapping on behalf of a few members is appalling.

What you said wasn't a metaphor. This is: the banhammer is going to hit you hard.
 
Whether or not I believe that they can, I know that they do all of those things, and they do it without meaningful supervision. They see clinic, they see inpatients, they round on nurseries, they see undifferentiated patients in the ED, and they do it all under the technical but not actual supervision of the attendings and administrators that insist that 4 years of medical school isn't nearly enough. This isn't unique to Pediatrics, I have seen the same thing on the adult floors as well at multiple civilian hospitals, and multiple private clinics.

Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. You will never find an academic attending that SAYS that a single 24 hour shift of residency isn't necessary, but they will happily sign on to allow midlevels without any of that training to practice without meaningful supervision if it profits them. I am not making a statement one way or the other about whether or not midlevels actually are qualified to do those things, but anyone who works as an attending or administrator in a residency program AND works with an effectively independent mid-level is hypocritical about something. Since that's most residency program I have seen I will conclude that, based on my sample, most residency programs are hypocritical and are working you to death for fun and profit.
So you're seeing NPs who, in a single day, are rounding on inpatients, seeing newborns, AND doing clinic time? That's interesting, because I've never seen that in the now 3 cities and 5 jobs I've had since residency.

I think you're generalizing a bit much.

My FM residency had 1 NP. She saw patients one half-day per week, rest of the time she was our QI person.

The FM residency where I did med school didn't have midlevels. The Peds program there had 1, she was newborn well nursery only.

The FM residency in my current city has 1 NP, she sees patients in clinic 2 half days, QI the rest of the time.

My wife's IM program had no midlevels nor did the IM program where we went to med school.

The surgery program there had one PA who assisted in the surgical step-down and nothing else. Do my anecdotes outnumber yours yet?

As for 24 hour call - I've not heard any non-procedural people say they are necessary. My program did away with them in 2011 like most. My wife's did as well. The PDs didn't like it because it forced them to create a whole new schedule, but otherwise they didn't seem to really care one way or another. 80 hours is 80 hours.
 
i have this theory that may partly explain the attitude in medicine towards long hours. It is a bit out there but deserves to be mentioned. Some people in medicine are often happier at work than at home. Nobody likes to say that because it makes you sound like a terrible SO, parent, etc... but on some level being always busy working hard/doing urgent stuff can free up your day from a lot of the mundane personal BS others have to deal with. An attending or even a senior resident at work is almost never ordered to take out trash, wash the dishes, or clean the garage. People generally respect you and your opinion counts. Besides, a lot of your buddies work at the hospital. They may actually be more fun to talk to and provide more intellectual stimulation than your family.
Very true. One thing I wanted to add was that many attendings are "the man" at work. You're respected broadly, simple as that. Outside of work? You're largely just another guy or gal.
 
Top