Resident duty hours in surgery for ensuring patient safety, providing optimum resident education and training, and promoting resident well-being: A response from the American College of Surgeons to the Report of the Institute of Medicine, “Resident Duty Hours: Enhancing Sleep, Supervision, and Safety”

Surgery ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 146 (3) ◽  
pp. 398-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
L.D. Britt ◽  
Ajit K. Sachdeva ◽  
Gerald B. Healy ◽  
Thomas V. Whalen ◽  
Patrice Gabler Blair
1970 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay Melvin ◽  
Sophie Corriveau ◽  
Aiman Alak ◽  
Ameen Patel

Residents are physicians undertaking further training to become independently licensed practitioners. Historically, resident duty hour periods were long and intense. The goal was to maximize learning through high patient volume and to teach doctors how to take responsibility. Recently, concerns over patient and resident safety have led to restricted trainee work hours. The putative justification is to improve resident education, resident well-being, and patient care. In light of this recent shift in the medical culture, resident duty hours have become a controversial topic. Restricted duty hours take many forms. In the United States, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandated junior residents work no longer than 16 consecutive hours, while senior residents could work up to 26 hours.1 In Canada, no nationwide mandate exists and the issue falls within provincial jurisdiction. In Ontario, under the Professional Association of Residents of Ontario agreement, call-periods are no more than 26 consecutive hours in-house, no more than one in four nights in-house, or no more than one in three nights of home-call. After a 2011 Quebec court ruling, resident duty hours were restricted to 16 consecutive hours in that province. This resulted from the court concluding that traditional hours violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Regardless, the Quebec ruling prompted other Canadian programs to further reduce resident duty hours and consecutive hours on-call. To better understand this complex issue, the following review discusses resident safety, resident performance, resident education, and patient safety. Our goal is to present a balanced, evidence-based discussion, addressing both patient safety and resident fatigue management.


2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter D. Fabricant ◽  
Christopher J. Dy ◽  
David M. Dare ◽  
Mathias P. Bostrom

Abstract Background Resident duty hour limits have been a point of debate among educators, administrators, and policymakers alike since the Libby Zion case in 1984. Advocates for duty hour limits in the surgical subspecialties cite improvements in patient safety, whereas opponents claim that limiting resident duty hours jeopardizes resident education and preparedness for independent surgical practice. Methods Using orthopaedic surgery as an example, we describe the historical context of the implementation of the duty hour standards, provide a review of the literature presenting data that both supports and refutes continued restrictions, and outline suggestions for policy going forward that prioritize patient safety while maintaining an enhanced environment for resident education. Results Although patient safety markers have improved in some studies since the implementation of duty hour limits, it is unclear whether this is due to changes in residency training or external factors. The literature is mixed regarding academic performance and trainee readiness during and after residency. Conclusion Although excessive duty hours and resident fatigue may have historically contributed to errors in the delivery of patient care, those are certainly not the only concerns. An overall “culture of safety,” which includes pinpointing systematic improvements, identifying potential sources of error, raising performance standards and safety expectations, and implementing multiple layers of protection against medical errors, can continue to augment safety barriers and improve patient care. This can be achieved within a more flexible educational environment that protects resident education and ensures optimal training for the next generation of physicians and surgeons.


2017 ◽  
Vol 156 (6) ◽  
pp. 991-998 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Gettelfinger ◽  
P. Barrett Paulk ◽  
Cecelia E. Schmalbach

Objective The breadth and depth of patient safety/quality improvement (PS/QI) research dedicated to otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (OHNS) education remains unknown. This systematic review aims to define this scope and to identify knowledge gaps as well as potential areas of future study to improved PS/QI education and training in OHNS. Data Sources A computerized Ovid/Medline database search was conducted (January 1, 1965, to May 15, 2015). Similar computerized searches were conducted using Cochrane Database, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Review Methods The study protocol was developed a priori using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Articles were classified by year, subspecialty, Institute of Medicine (IOM) Crossing the Chasm categories, and World Health Organization (WHO) subclass. Results Computerized searches yielded 8743 eligible articles, 267 (3.4%) of which met otolaryngology PS/QI inclusion criteria; 51 (19%) were dedicated to resident/fellow education and training. Simulation studies (39%) and performance/competency evaluation (23.5%) were the most common focus. Most projects involved general otolaryngology (47%), rhinology (18%), and otology (16%). Classification by the IOM included effective care (45%), safety/effective care (41%), and effective and efficient care (7.8%). Most research fell into the WHO category of “identifying solutions” (61%). Conclusion Nineteen percent of OHNS PS/QI articles are dedicated to education, the majority of which are simulation and focus on effective care. Knowledges gaps for future research include facial plastics PS/QI and the WHO category of “studies translating evidence into safer care.”


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaitlyn E. Davis ◽  
Pascale Meehan ◽  
Carla Klehm ◽  
Sarah Kurnick ◽  
Catherine Cameron

AbstractGraduate schools provide students opportunities for fieldwork and training in archaeological methods and theory, but they often overlook instruction in field safety and well-being. We suggest that more explicit guidance on how to conduct safe fieldwork will improve the overall success of student-led projects and prepare students to direct safe and successful fieldwork programs as professionals. In this article, we draw on the experiences of current and recent graduate students as well as professors who have overseen graduate fieldwork to outline key considerations in improving field safety and well-being and to offer recommendations for specific training and safety protocols. In devising these considerations and recommendations, we have referenced both domestic and international field projects, as well as those involving community collaboration.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roisin Osborne ◽  
Christopher S Parshuram

Author(s):  
Susan C Gardstrom ◽  
James Hiller ◽  
Annie Heiderscheit ◽  
Nancy L Jackson

Abstract As music therapists, music is our primary realm of understanding and action and our distinctive way of joining with a client to help them attain optimal health and well-being. As such, we have adopted and advocate for a music-focused, methods-based (M-B) approach to music therapy pre-internship education and training. In an M-B approach, students’ learning is centered on the 4 music therapy methods of composing, improvising, re-creating, and listening to music and how these music experiences can be designed and implemented to address the health needs of the diverse clientele whom they will eventually encounter as practicing clinicians. Learning is highly experiential, with students authentically participating in each of the methods and reflecting on these self-experiences as a basis for their own clinical decision-making. This is differentiated from a population based (P-B) approach, wherein students’ attention is directed at acquiring knowledge about the non-musical problems of specific “clinical populations” and the “best practice” music interventions that are presumed to address these problems. Herein, we discuss both approaches, identifying the limitations of a P-B perspective and outlining the benefits of an M-B curriculum and its relevance to 21st-century music therapy practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document