[ Editorials | Letters | Selected Articles | Departments and Series | Patient Handouts | Index ]

 

OB/GYN Editorial February 2003

Residents and Decreased Duty Hours

Ronald T. Burkman, MD

For those who follow trends in resident education, the two “hot topics” for this year and the coming months are duty hours, and competency-based learning and evaluation. This editorial will focus on duty hours. For those unfamiliar with the changes, duty hours are limited to 80 hours per week; on-call cannot be more fre-quent than one night in three; and res-idents cannot, with few exceptions, provide patient care continuously for more than 24 hours. Most of the older generation can certainly recall the long hours both related to continuous duty in the hospital and to on-call frequency. To many, the long hours were in many ways a rite of passage. However, except for the most recalcitrant of us, most would recognize that being on duty for up to 36 hours without sleep is not conducive to learning, and just is not safe for patients, especially during the last few hours of the day. Although one might suggest that doing routine, noncognitive activities might be all right in such situations, the truth is that adherence to protocols or guidelines and recognizing variations are critical for error prevention such that one needs to have some degree of alertness even when performing mundane tasks. Further, there are probably more technical and cognitive tasks facing house officers today compared to former years that cannot be accurately completed when in a sleep-deprived state. It is also important to recognize that the personalities and expectations of today’s younger physicians are different. For earlier generations, the duty to one’s patients took precedence, and family and personal pursuits were sacrificed due to the requirements of work. In contrast, today’s generation feels their professional life has an important, but finite, place that should not totally drive one’s lifestyle. Thus, there is less willingness to accept a profession in which long duty hours leave little time for other activities. As an aside, it will also be of interest to track applicants for residency programs who have this change in attitude in mind. A significant concern for many program directors of obstetrics and gynecology residencies is whether the number of applicants will begin to drop due to these concerns as well as other concerns such as the current liability crisis.

There is, however, a flip side to the debate. Reducing duty hours and on-call schedules means there will be less continuity for some patients and more “handoffs” among residents, leading to an increased chance for error. In addition, within a specialty such as obstetrics and gynecology where there are a substantial number of technical skills one must learn, less duty means less exposure to some clinical situations. In my own residency of five house officers per year, one could anticipate that as much as 20% of experience may be lost by each graduating resident unless one can craft a revamped approach to coverage and on-call. Unfortunately, nestled among those normal deliveries will be the unpredictable occurrences of shoulder dystocia and postpartum hemorrhage that residents need to experience to become competent obstetricians. One can cite other examples where exposure to complicated cases will likely be reduced under these new guidelines. There is also some concern that these requirements do not reflect the demands on time that some graduating residents will face once they enter practice. Although working reduced hours or even part-time is possible today, it is important to recognize that income will accordingly be reduced. For house officers with large debts accrued in medical school, today’s reimbursement rates and practice costs may not allow those physicians with sizable debt to work such limited hours. A final thought: if long duty hours are deemed unsafe for young physicians in training, what about older physicians already in practice? Although I for one feel that on-call duty limitations for all physicians are now inevitable, I guess only time will tell.

Ronald T. Burkman, MD

back to top


[ Home | CME/CE | Product News | Author Guidelines ]
[ Editorial Board | Reprints/Permissions | Archives | Circulation | Classifieds | Our Services ]


Copyright ©2000-2008 Quadrant HealthCom Inc., Parsippany, NJ, USA. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. The information provided on femalepatient.com is for educational purposes only. Use of this Web site is subject to the medical disclaimer and privacy policy.