Survey of internal medicine physicians trained in three different eras: reflections on duty-hour reform.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

To survey internal medicine physicians and residents who have completed residency in three different eras of medical training regarding their experiences during their intern year and their perceptions of duty-hour reform. An online survey was administered to 268 residents, fellows, and staff physicians who had completed or were completing residency during one of three eras of training: before the 80-hour work week, after the 80-hour work week (instituted in 2003), and after the 16-hour limit on continuous shifts for interns (instituted in 2011). The survey assessed experiences during their intern year of residency and perceptions regarding resident duty-hour reform. The majority of respondents (n = 32; 54%) indicated that duty-hour restrictions would result in residents being less prepared for their future careers. In addition, 36% (n = 21) of respondents anticipated a decrease in the quality of patient care under the restricted duty hours. A total of 41% (n = 24) were undecided regarding the impact of duty-hour reform on patient care. Respondents reported time spent on independent study, research, and conference attendance did not increase following the institution of duty-hour restrictions. Survey responses indicated that after 18 months of experience with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour restrictions, physician opinions were mixed and a substantial number remain undecided regarding the impact of duty-hour restrictions on resident career preparedness and the quality of patient care.