2005PubMedRequires access

Resident attitudes regarding the impact of the 80-duty-hours work standards.

Susan C. Zonia, Richard J. LaBaere, Manfred Stommel, Daniel D Tomaszewski

Open publisher page 13 citations

Abstract

The authors report on results from a survey assessing the attitudes of medical residents toward the American Osteopathic Association and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour standards that became effective for all accredited residency programs on July 1, 2003. Data were gathered from 128 residents in four medical specialties: family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology. Participating residents worked at four teaching hospitals with allopathic, osteopathic, or dual-accredited programs. The dominant response of medical residents to duty-hour restrictions is clearly-though not uniformly-positive. Residents tend to agree that there are safety benefits for patients and quality-of-life benefits for themselves. A consistent pattern of positive responses toward the standards among internal medicine residents contrasts with less favorable responses among residents in general surgery programs. Gender differences are noted as well, with women generally more positive about duty-hour restrictions than their male colleagues. Male residents in surgery and obstetrics especially tend to agree that duty-hour restrictions could have negative effects on physician education with regard to their continuity of experience. The most consistent pattern in resident survey responses appears to be by medical specialty, perhaps reflecting variations in the nature of patient care and contact in each specialty.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The authors report on results from a survey assessing the attitudes of medical residents toward the American Osteopathic Association and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour standards that became effective for all accredited residency programs on July 1, 2003. Data were gathered from 128 residents in four medical specialties: family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology. Participating residents worked at four teaching hospitals with allopathic, osteopathic, or dual-accredited programs. The dominant response of medical residents to duty-hour restrictions is clearly-though not uniformly-positive. Residents tend to agree that there are safety benefits for patients and quality-of-life benefits for themselves. A consistent pattern of positive responses toward the standards among internal medicine residents contrasts with less favorable responses among residents in general surgery programs. Gender differences are noted as well, with women generally more positive about duty-hour restrictions than their male colleagues. Male residents in surgery and obstetrics especially tend to agree that duty-hour restrictions could have negative effects on physician education with regard to their continuity of experience. The most consistent pattern in resident survey responses appears to be by medical specialty, perhaps reflecting variations in the nature of patient care and contact in each specialty.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 13 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The authors report on results from a survey assessing the attitudes of medical residents toward the American Osteopathic Association and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour standards that became effective for all accredited residency programs on July 1, 2003. Data were gathered from 128 residents in four medical specialties: family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology. Participating residents worked at four teaching hospitals with allopathic, osteopathic, or dual-accredited programs. The dominant response of medical residents to duty-hour restrictions is clearly-though not uniformly-positive. Residents tend to agree that there are safety benefits for patients and quality-of-life benefits for themselves. A consistent pattern of positive responses toward the standards among internal medicine residents contrasts with less favorable responses among residents in general surgery programs. Gender differences are noted as well, with women generally more positive about duty-hour restrictions than their male colleagues. Male residents in surgery and obstetrics especially tend to agree that duty-hour restrictions could have negative effects on physician education with regard to their continuity of experience. The most consistent pattern in resident survey responses appears to be by medical specialty, perhaps reflecting variations in the nature of patient care and contact in each specialty.

Key concepts: Accreditation, Medicine, Specialty, Graduate medical education, Duty, Family medicine, Obstetrics and gynaecology, Medical education

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Resident attitudes regarding the impact of the 80-duty-hours work standards. — Research Paper | ScholarLens