Does restricting work hours hurt surgical training?

by Michael Smith

Life is better but the quality of surgical training has gone down in the wake of a Swiss law restricting surgical residents’ hours.

That was the view of both the residents and the surgical consultants who supervise them in a survey conducted by Daniel Oertli, MD, of University Hospital Basel in Basel, Switzerland, and colleagues.

Less than 9% of residents and less than 5% of surgical consultants saw the change — which went into effect Jan. 1, 2005 — as beneficial to surgical training, the researchers reported in the June issue of Archives of Surgery.

The issue of surgical residents’ work hours has been controversial for years, the researchers noted, with some critics suggesting that long shifts lead to medical errors that compromise patient safety while others argue that surgical skills can only be honed with intensive work.

In the U.S., all medical residents have been limited to 80 hours a week since 2003 and even that is too little to achieve mastery for those intending to be surgeons, a 2009 report said.

But the Swiss law goes further. Within a total of 50 hours, Oertli and colleagues noted, daily day and night work time has to be limited to 14 hours, including all breaks, and rest time each day must equal or exceed 11 consecutive hours. Residents can’t work more than two hours a day of overtime except in rare cases and overtime can’t exceed 140 hours a year.

To see how those restrictions affected training and patient care, the researchers surveyed residents and consultants in 52 of the country’s 93 surgical departments. Of the 281 residents and 337 consultants, 405 responded, they said.

Oertli and colleagues found:

* 62.8% of residents and 77.2% of consultants thought the 50-hour workweek had had a negative effect on surgical training. The difference was significant at P<0.001.
* Only 8.1% of residents and 4.9% of consultants saw the limits as benefiting surgical training.
* Most residents and consultants thought that operating time had gone down, at 76.9% and 73.4%, respectively.
* 73.8% of residents and 84.8% of consultants thought the overall operating room experience was negatively affected by the work hours.
* 43% of residents and 70.1% of consultants thought the quality of patient care had gone down. Again the difference between the two groups was significant at P<0.001.
* On the other hand, 58.4% of residents and 81.5% of consultants thought that residents’ quality of life had improved. The difference was significant at P<0.001.

“Despite somewhat improved resident quality of life,” Oertli and colleagues wrote, “the work hour limitation for surgical residencies in Switzerland appears to be a failure.”

The researchers noted that the study was anonymous, so they could not assess nonresponse bias by identifying nonresponders. And, they noted, the survey was conducted in a year after the limits were imposed and may “partially reflect the lack of adaptation to a new system.”

They added that the survey did not include patients or nurses, so there is no way to substantiate any perceived lack of continuity in physician care.

Michael Smith is a MedPage Today North American Correspondent.

Originally published in MedPage Today. Visit MedPageToday.com for more health policy news.

email

  • Brian

    This is just silly. In order to determine whether the work-hour restrictions affected patient care, rather than identify specific metrics and measure them, they gave a survey?

    I am not coming down on either side of this debate, but to conclude that work-hour restrictions in this case were a failure based upon an anonymous survey of residents and consultants is laughable.

  • Dr. J

    This study is a great example of how mixed up we are about this argument about resident work hours. The problem for residents is that they are often working in a non-humane work environment and as a result their lives, marriages and family relationships are often torn asunder as their residency training progresses. Part of the problem is that they work too many hours, but other parts of the problem also exist; residents are frequently verbally and psychologically abused, less frequently physically abused, they have no control over their lives or ability to predict their lives. Their ability to honor a commitment outside of work is only at the whim of the person they are working with that day to let them leave on time. The style of education resembles the medieval apprenticeship and is ineffective, and the work conditions often resemble a depression era factory.

    Many teaching programs are more concerned with indoctrination then education, and have an ‘I did 1 in 2 call and so should you’ attitude.

    Residents have rallied around the shortened work week (to 80 hours in the US, which is really not that SHORT) because it is the only aspect of mistreatment they can approach head on. Educational programs have responded by arguing that the residents are not getting adequate education, but have mostly stubbornly refused to embrace any modern teaching methods. Instead to prove the validity of their old model they continue to ‘teach’ in an unchanged fashion, which worked poorly to begin with and now doesn’t work at all.

    Those of us who have chosen to include resident teaching in our practice have a responsibility to those we teach:
    We are responsible to recognize that they are human, and have a right to maintain a life and a marriage etc. outside of the hospital.
    We are responsible to recognize that they are primarily with us to learn, and secondarily to provide service and work.
    We are responsible to apply the standards of evidence based practice to our teaching, using methods that are effective and avoiding methods which are not (such as humiliation, a previously popular teaching technique).
    We are responsible to construct training programs that will optimize the acquisition of procedural, technical and cognitive skills that will allow our residents to provide excellent patient care in their future practices.

    At present we have restricted this debate to work hours, and that does a grave disservice. This is really a debate about how we educate people (we should strive to be effective) and how we treat people (we should treat them as fellow humans rather than as slaves). There are many elements that will go into an effective solution and work hours is just the tip of the iceburg, but until we are willing, as medical educators, to look at this squarely nothing substantial will actually change.

  • Pieter Kubben

    It remains a difficult topic. In the Netherlands we have comparable restrictions. If working more hours would mean that you actually get more surgical exposure, it MAY be worth thinking about. But if you are only staying on the ward, it is not really of added value IMHO.

    As we will need more doctors in the future with more people who are old and living longer, thinking on how to improve the efficacy of resident education may be the better option on the long term, I think.

  • Cool

    Yikes sorry for the typos. It’s early and Im on the iPad. Very good in anatomical procedures though. :)

  • Cool

    It’s surprising Jo one ever mentions how different qualities of resident might do better at different hours of exposure. I’m veer good re my hands so procedures came faster to me than other co-residents. I know some brilliant internal med residents who are smarter than their attending. Yes, the bottom line is pt outcomes and we have to see how that’s been affected. But the blanket restrictions assume one size fits for each resident. That’s not true. Some residents would need 15yrs to master some complex procedures. Others, need much less.

  • jsmith

    Just add a year or two to residency to make sure they get the cases they need.

    • 3rd year med student

      You’ll see a huge drop off in an already waning general surgeon population when it takes 7 years to get through that residency… add fellowships and it’ll be a decade!

  • Doc99

    Here’s an issue that should have been subjected to Evidence Based scrutiny rather than surveys.
    http://www.annals.org/content/141/11/851.full
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16145030

    It appears the jury is still out on this one.

    Art

    • twicker

      @Doc99: AMEN. As both you and @Brian point out — why are we surveying people, especially at the earliest institution of the changes, when we could, you know, actually look at quality measures? Now, admittedly, it’s far, far easier to administer, say, an online survey instead of actually looking at patient outcomes. The survey takes a couple of hours to set up, do a quick IRB proposal, send it out, wait a week or so, then run the data through SPSS (or even Excel, given how non-complicated this data is). Hey presto! Results! Too bad about the whole “face validity” thing.

      I read through this, just waiting for some kind of comparison to patient outcome data. I’m deeply, deeply disappointed …

  • Erin

    I don’t really know the answer to this issue, but I do know that training could be restructured around the new hours. Now if you are in the middle of a complex surgery and your hours are up, no resident is going to just get up and leave. On the otherhand, the US rules state an average of 80 hours over 4 weeks, so you could work 2 -100 hr weeks and 2 – 60 hour weeks. I know there has been studies about handoffs and such and questions about patient care, but putting in systems to allow better handoffs could improve the situation. These are growing pains of a new system and some bumps in the road are going to come up. Unlimited work hours are abusive.

Trending