Kathleen M Finn1, Andrew J Halvorsen2, Saima Chaudhry3, Sanjay Desai4, Denise Dupras2, Shalini Reddy5, Sandhya Wahi-Gururaj6, Lisa Willett7, Aimee K Zaas8. 1. Internal Medicine Residency Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Kfinn@partners.org. 2. Internal Medicine Residency Program, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Office of Academic Affairs, Memorial Healthcare System, Hollywood, FL, USA. 4. School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Internal Medicine Residency Program, John H. Stroger Hospital of Cook County Health, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Internal Medicine Residency, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nevada Las Vegas School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, USA. 7. Tinsley Harrison Internal Medicine Residency, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 8. Internal Medicine Residency Program, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The learning and working environment for resident physicians shifted dramatically over the past two decades, with increased focus on work hours, resident wellness, and patient safety. Following two multi-center randomized trials comparing 16-h work limits for PGY-1 trainees to more flexible rules, the ACGME implemented new flexible work hours standards in 2017. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine program directors' (PDs) support for the work hour changes and programmatic response. DESIGN: In 2017, US Internal Medicine PDs were surveyed about their degree of support for extension of PGY-1 work hour limits, whether they adopted the new maximum continuous work hours permitted, and reasons for their decisions. KEY RESULTS: The response rate was 70% (266/379). Fifty-seven percent of PDs (n = 151) somewhat/strongly support the new work hour rules for PGY-1 residents, while only 25% of programs (N = 66) introduced work periods greater than 16-h on any rotation. Higher rates of adopting change were seen in PDs who strongly/somewhat supported the change (56/151 [37%], P < 0.001), had tenure of 6+ years (33/93 [35%], P = 0.005), were of non-general internal medicine subspecialty (30/80 [38%], P = 0.003), at university-based programs (35/101 [35%], P = 0.009), and with increasing number of approved positions (< 38, 10/63 [16%]; 38-58, 13/69 [19%]; 59-100, 15/64 [23%]; > 100, 28/68 [41%], P = 0.005). Areas with the greatest influence for PDs not extending work hours were the 16-h rule working well (56%) and risk to PGY1 well-being (47%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of PDs support the ACGME 2017 work hours rules, only 25% of programs made immediate changes to extend hours. These data reveal that complex, often competing, forces influence PDs' decisions to change trainee schedules.
BACKGROUND: The learning and working environment for resident physicians shifted dramatically over the past two decades, with increased focus on work hours, resident wellness, and patient safety. Following two multi-center randomized trials comparing 16-h work limits for PGY-1 trainees to more flexible rules, the ACGME implemented new flexible work hours standards in 2017. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine program directors' (PDs) support for the work hour changes and programmatic response. DESIGN: In 2017, US Internal Medicine PDs were surveyed about their degree of support for extension of PGY-1 work hour limits, whether they adopted the new maximum continuous work hours permitted, and reasons for their decisions. KEY RESULTS: The response rate was 70% (266/379). Fifty-seven percent of PDs (n = 151) somewhat/strongly support the new work hour rules for PGY-1 residents, while only 25% of programs (N = 66) introduced work periods greater than 16-h on any rotation. Higher rates of adopting change were seen in PDs who strongly/somewhat supported the change (56/151 [37%], P < 0.001), had tenure of 6+ years (33/93 [35%], P = 0.005), were of non-general internal medicine subspecialty (30/80 [38%], P = 0.003), at university-based programs (35/101 [35%], P = 0.009), and with increasing number of approved positions (< 38, 10/63 [16%]; 38-58, 13/69 [19%]; 59-100, 15/64 [23%]; > 100, 28/68 [41%], P = 0.005). Areas with the greatest influence for PDs not extending work hours were the 16-h rule working well (56%) and risk to PGY1 well-being (47%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of PDs support the ACGME 2017 work hours rules, only 25% of programs made immediate changes to extend hours. These data reveal that complex, often competing, forces influence PDs' decisions to change trainee schedules.
Entities:
Keywords:
internal medicine program directors; resident schedules; resident work hours
Authors: Mohammad H Jamal; Mathieu C Rousseau; Wael C Hanna; Suhail A R Doi; Sarkis Meterissian; Linda Snell Journal: Acad Med Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Jennifer R Kogan; Jennifer Lapin; Eva Aagaard; Christy Boscardin; Meenakshy K Aiyer; Danelle Cayea; Adam Cifu; Gretchen Diemer; Steven Durning; Michael Elnicki; Sara B Fazio; Asra R Khan; Valerie J Lang; Matthew Mintz; L James Nixon; Doug Paauw; Dario M Torre; Karen E Hauer Journal: Teach Learn Med Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.414
Authors: Richard S Matulewicz; David D Odell; Jeanette W Chung; Kristen A Ban; Anthony D Yang; Karl Y Bilimoria Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-11-21 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Jeffrey H Silber; Lisa M Bellini; Judy A Shea; Sanjay V Desai; David F Dinges; Mathias Basner; Orit Even-Shoshan; Alexander S Hill; Lauren L Hochman; Joel T Katz; Richard N Ross; David M Shade; Dylan S Small; Alice L Sternberg; James Tonascia; Kevin G Volpp; David A Asch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sanjay V Desai; Leonard Feldman; Lorrel Brown; Rebecca Dezube; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Naresh Punjabi; Kia Afshar; Michael R Grunwald; Colleen Harrington; Rakhi Naik; Joseph Cofrancesco Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Teryl K Nuckols; Jay Bhattacharya; Dianne Miller Wolman; Cheryl Ulmer; José J Escarce Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; Jeanette W Chung; Larry V Hedges; Allison R Dahlke; Remi Love; Mark E Cohen; David B Hoyt; Anthony D Yang; John L Tarpley; John D Mellinger; David M Mahvi; Rachel R Kelz; Clifford Y Ko; David D Odell; Jonah J Stulberg; Frank R Lewis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 91.245