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
Presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Association for Surgical Education, New York, New York, March 30–April 1, 2005
Received 18 March 2005; received in revised form 5 June 2005
Abstract
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 ≤ .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.
ABSTRACT