Impact of the 80-Hour Workweek on Surgical Case Exposure Within a General Surgery Residency Program
Riverside Methodist Hospital, Columbus, Ohio 43214, USA. Journal of Surgical Education
(Impact Factor: 1.38).
09/2010; 67(5):283-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2010.07.012
The objective of this statistical analysis was to test the hypothesis that implementation of the 80-hour workweek restrictions for General Surgery residents at Riverside Methodist Hospital after July 2003 decreased their operative experience relative to surgical residents trained at Riverside before these changes.
Data were collected from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education national database and from Riverside Methodist Hospital's General Surgery Residency records for a sampling of academic years before and after the duty-hour changes in surgical education (July 1, 2003). Current procedural terminology (CPT) surgical procedure codes logged by postgraduate year (PGY) 5 General Surgery residents 15 years before and 5 years after implementation of the 80-hour workweek were compared. The outcome variables "total major cases" and "Chief cases" were compared between 2 study groups defined by the time intervals exclusively before July 2003 ("pre") and inclusively after July 2003 ("post"). Hospital general surgical case volume for the study intervals was also tallied. Statistical analyses included 1- and 2-sided t-tests, nonparametric tests, and t-tests on a 3-parameter logarithmic transformation of the data.
Despite an upward trend in total general surgery cases (slope = 25/year, p = 0.005), there was a statistically significant decrease in the operative experience for categorical surgical residents following the 80-hour workweek restrictions. The mean (SD) number of major cases performed by "pre"-restriction residents during their training significantly exceeded that of their "post" cohorts (1395  vs 953 , p < 0.001). The training for PGY 5 residents was similarly influenced (345  vs 237 , p < .0001).
Despite an increase in the total number of major operative cases available, the volume of cases performed by residents has decreased after implementation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) work-hour restrictions. Our data suggest that the impact of the 80-hour workweek has had a detrimental effect on the conventional resident training experience.
Available from: Ramani Moonesinghe
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine whether a reduction in working hours of doctors in postgraduate medical training has had an effect on objective measures of medical education and clinical outcome.
Medline, Embase, ISI Web of Science, Google Scholar, ERIC, and SIGLE were searched without language restriction for articles published between 1990 and December 2010. Reference lists and citations of selected articles.
Studies that assessed the impact of a change in duty hours using any objective measure of outcome related to postgraduate medical training, patient safety, or clinical outcome. Any study design was eligible for inclusion.
72 studies were eligible for inclusion: 38 reporting training outcomes, 31 reporting outcomes in patients, and three reporting both. A reduction in working hours from greater than 80 hours a week (in accordance with US recommendations) does not seem to have adversely affected patient safety and has had limited effect on postgraduate training. Reports on the impact of European legislation limiting working hours to less than 56 or 48 a week are of poor quality and have conflicting results, meaning that firm conclusions cannot be made.
Reducing working hours to less than 80 a week has not adversely affected outcomes in patient or postgraduate training in the US. The impact of reducing hours to less than 56 or 48 a week in the UK has not yet been sufficiently evaluated in high quality studies. Further work is required, particularly in the European Union, using large multicentre evaluations of the impact of duty hours' legislation on objective educational and clinical outcomes.
BMJ Clinical Research 03/2011; 342:d1580. DOI:10.1136/bmj.d1580 · 14.09 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Trauma centers are designated by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) into four different levels based on resources, volume, and scientific and educational commitment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between ACS center designation and outcomes after early thoracotomy for trauma. The National Trauma Databank (v. 7.0) was used to identify all patients who required early thoracotomy. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were extracted. Patients were categorized according to ACS trauma center designation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of ACS trauma center designation on mortality. From 2002 to 2006, 1834 (77.4%) patients were admitted to a Level I ACS verified trauma center, 474 (20.0%) to a Level II, and 59 (3.6%) to a Level III/IV facility. After adjusting for differences between the groups, there were no significant differences in mortality (overall: 53.3% for Level I, 63.1% for Level II, and 52.5% for Level III/IV, adjusted P = 0.417; or for patients arriving in cardiac arrest: 74.9% vs 87.1% vs 85.0%, P = 0.261). Subgroup analysis did not show any significant difference in survival irrespective of mechanism of injury. Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤ 8, Injury Severity Score > 16, no admission systolic blood pressure, time from admission to thoracotomy, and nonteaching hospitals were found to be independent predictors of death. For trauma patients who have sustained injuries requiring early thoracotomy, ACS trauma center designation did not significantly impact mortality. Nonteaching institutions however, were independently associated with poorer outcomes after early thoracotomy. These findings may have important implications in educational commitment of institutions. Further prospective evaluation of these findings is warranted.
The American surgeon 01/2012; 78(1):36-41. · 0.82 Impact Factor
Available from: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This review systematically examines the literature regarding mentor-mentee relationships in surgery.
The usefulness of mentorship in surgical training has been expressed in many articles. However, to date, there has been no systematic review on mentoring surgical trainees. This surgical environment is different from other areas of medicine and requires young surgeons to learn skills not readily available from textbooks. Instead, mentors are a valuable mode of transferring this knowledge to the next generation of surgeons. Thus, mentorship is a worthy area of research and attention.
We identified all articles discussing mentorship in surgery between January 1985 and August 2010 using PubMed and ISI Web of Knowledge. Predetermined exclusion and inclusion criteria were used to screen articles by title, abstract, and full text in sequence. We extracted the relevant data, and then analyzed the prevalence of major surgical mentoring themes in the literature.
Of the 1,091 unique articles found during our original literature search, 38 were selected for review. The majority (68%) were commentary/editorial articles. The most discussed themes include the desirable qualities of a surgical mentor, the structure of mentor-mentee relationships, and advice for overcoming barriers to mentoring. Much less discussed themes include the desirable traits in a mentee and the appreciation of generational and cultural differences in mentorship.
Several barriers to effective surgical mentoring were identified, such as time constraints and a lack of female mentors. By focusing on the positive traits found in this review, for example, developing formal programs to alleviate time constraints, these barriers can be overcome and effective mentor-mentee relationships can be built. Many articles draw attention to the dying art of mentorship in surgical training programs, and currently, the literature on mentorship in surgery is somewhat scarce. These concerns should serve as motivation to revive mentorship in surgery education and to expand the literature regarding underexplored themes and overcoming the current barriers. Although mentorship may not always take on a structured form, it should not be treated casually because proper mentorship is the foundation for training quality surgeons.
Hand 03/2012; 7(1):30-6. DOI:10.1007/s11552-011-9379-8
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.