How surgical faculty and residents assess the first year of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour restrictions: results of a multi-institutional study. Am J Surg 2006 Jan;191(1):11-6
Date
01/10/2006Pubmed ID
16399099DOI
10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.06.044Scopus ID
2-s2.0-29944444271 (requires institutional sign-in at Scopus site) 28 CitationsAbstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined how surgical residents and faculty assessed the first year of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour restrictions.
METHODS: Questionnaires were administered in 9 general-surgery programs during the summer of 2004; response rates were 63% for faculty and 58% for residents (N = 259). Questions probed patient care, the residency program, quality of life, and overall assessments of the duty-hour restrictions. Results include the means, mean deviations, percentage who agree or strongly agree with the hour restrictions, and significance tests.
RESULTS: Although most support the restrictions, few maintain that they improved surgical training or patient care. Faculty and residents differed (P < or = .05) on 16 of 21 items. Every difference shows that residents view the restrictions more favorably than faculty. The sex of the resident shaped the magnitude of the gap for 11 of 21 items.
CONCLUSIONS: Few believe that duty-hour restrictions improve patient care or resident training. Residents, especially female residents, view the restrictions more favorably than faculty.
Author List
Coverdill JE, Adrales GL, Finlay W, Mellinger JD, Anderson KD, Bonnell BW, Cofer JB, Dorner DB, Haisch C, Harold KL, Termuhlen PM, Webb ALMESH terms used to index this publication - Major topics in bold
Attitude of Health PersonnelEducation, Medical, Graduate
Educational Measurement
Faculty, Medical
Female
General Surgery
Humans
Internship and Residency
Male
Patient Care
Personnel Staffing and Scheduling
Time Factors
Work Schedule Tolerance
Workload
