Dataset Information

Does Increased Schedule Flexibility Lead to Change? A National Survey of Program Directors on 2017 Work Hours Requirements.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The learning and working environment for resident physicians shifted dramatically over the past two decades, with increased focus on work hours, resident wellness, and patient safety. Following two multi-center randomized trials comparing 16-h work limits for PGY-1 trainees to more flexible rules, the ACGME implemented new flexible work hours standards in 2017.

Objective

We sought to determine program directors' (PDs) support for the work hour changes and programmatic response.

Design

In 2017, US Internal Medicine PDs were surveyed about their degree of support for extension of PGY-1 work hour limits, whether they adopted the new maximum continuous work hours permitted, and reasons for their decisions.

Key results

The response rate was 70% (266/379). Fifty-seven percent of PDs (n = 151) somewhat/strongly support the new work hour rules for PGY-1 residents, while only 25% of programs (N = 66) introduced work periods greater than 16-h on any rotation. Higher rates of adopting change were seen in PDs who strongly/somewhat supported the change (56/151 [37%], P < 0.001), had tenure of 6+ years (33/93 [35%], P = 0.005), were of non-general internal medicine subspecialty (30/80 [38%], P = 0.003), at university-based programs (35/101 [35%], P = 0.009), and with increasing number of approved positions (< 38, 10/63 [16%]; 38-58, 13/69 [19%]; 59-100, 15/64 [23%]; > 100, 28/68 [41%], P = 0.005). Areas with the greatest influence for PDs not extending work hours were the 16-h rule working well (56%) and risk to PGY1 well-being (47%).

Conclusions

Although the majority of PDs support the ACGME 2017 work hours rules, only 25% of programs made immediate changes to extend hours. These data reveal that complex, often competing, forces influence PDs' decisions to change trainee schedules.

SUBMITTER: Finn KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7661583 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIn 2011, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented new Common Program Requirements to regulate duty hours of resident physicians, with three goals: improved patient safety, quality of resident education and quality of life for trainees. We sought to assess Internal Medicine program director (IMPD) perceptions of the 2011 Common Program Requirements in July 2012, one year following implementation of the new standards.MethodsA cross-sectional study of all IMPDs at ACGME-accredited programs in the United States (N?=?381) was performed using a 32-question, self-administered survey. Contact information was identified for 323 IMPDs. Three individualized emails were sent to each director over a 6-week period, requesting participation in the survey. Outcomes measured included approval of duty hours regulations, as well as perceptions of changes in graduate medical education and patient care resulting from the revised ACGME standards.ResultsA total of 237 surveys were returned (73% response rate). More than half of the IMPDs (52%) reported "overall" approval of the 2011 duty hour regulations, with greater than 70% approval of all individual regulations except senior resident daily duty periods (49% approval) and 16-hour intern shifts (17% approval). Although a majority feel resident quality of life has improved (55%), most IMPDs believe that resident education (60%) is worse. A minority report that quality (8%) or safety (11%) of patient care has improved.ConclusionOne year after implementation of new ACGME duty hour requirements, IMPDs report overall approval of the standards, but strong disapproval of 16-hour shift limits for interns. Few program directors perceive that the duty hour restrictions have resulted in better care for patients or education of residents. Although resident quality of life seems improved, most IMPDs report that their own workload has increased. Based on these results, the intended benefits of duty hour regulations may not yet have been realized.

Project description:ImportanceIncreased work requirements have been proposed throughout federal safety net programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Participation in SNAP is associated with reduced food insecurity and improved health.ObjectivesTo determine whether SNAP work requirements are associated with lower rates of program participation and to examine whether there are racial/ethnic disparities or spillover effects for people with disabilities, who are not intended to be affected by work requirements.Design, setting, and participantsThis nationally representative, pooled cross-sectional study examined how changes in SNAP work requirements at state and local levels in the US are associated with changes in food voucher program participation. The study combined information on state and local SNAP work requirements with repeated cross-sections from the 2012 through 2017 American Community Survey (with outcomes covering 2013 to 2017). The analytical approaches were based on difference-in-difference and triple-difference methods, after controlling for other economic and social factors. The sample included low-income adults without dependents, stratified by racial/ethnic group and disability status. The study also included parents who would otherwise meet work requirement criteria as a comparison group to estimate triple-difference models. This accounted for otherwise unobserved factors affecting trends in SNAP participation within local areas. Data were analyzed from January 2019 through March 2020.ExposureResidence in areas where SNAP work requirements apply.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome is SNAP participation measured by whether anyone in the household received food vouchers at any point over the prior 12 months.ResultsThe final analytical sample included 866?000 low-income adults (weighted mean [SE] age, 33.6 [0.01] years; 42.5% [SE, 0.07%] men). The racial/ethnic breakdown was 56.5% (SE, 0.07%) non-Hispanic white respondents, 19.4% (SE, 0.06%) non-Hispanic black respondents, 17.7% (SE, 0.06%) Hispanic respondents, 2.5% (SE, 0.02%) Asian respondents, and 3.9% (SE, 0.03%) respondents of other or multiple races. In final triple-difference models, work requirements were associated with a 4.0 percentage point decrease in participation (95% CI, -0.048 to -0.032; P?<?.001) for childless adults without disability, equivalent to a 21.2% reduction in SNAP participation (95% CI, -25.5% to -17.0%). For childless adults with disability, work requirements were associated with a 4.0 percentage point reduction (95% CI, -0.058 to -0.023; P?<?.001), equivalent to 7.8% fewer SNAP participants with disability (95% CI, -11.2% to -4.4%). When the final models were stratified by race/ethnicity, benefit reductions were larger for non-Hispanic black adults (7.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.092 to -0.051; P?<?.001) and Hispanic adults (5.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.072 to -0.038; P?<?.001) than for non-Hispanic white adults (2.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.035 to -0.016; P?<?.001).Conclusions and relevanceBecause of the association of SNAP with food security and health, work requirements that lead to benefit loss may create nutritional and health harm for low-income Americans. These findings suggest that there may be racially disparate consequences and unintended harm for those with disability.

Project description:BackgroundSurgical training is constantly adapting to better prepare trainees for an evolving landscape of surgical practice. Training in vascular surgery additionally underwent a paradigm shift with the introduction of the integrated training pathway now more than a decade ago. With this study, we sought to characterize the needs and goals of our current vascular surgery trainee population.MethodsThe Association of Program Directors in Vascular Surgery Issues Committee compiled a survey to assess demographics, current needs, and goals of trainees and to evaluate trainee distress using a validated seven-item Physician Well-Being Index. The survey was distributed electronically to all current vascular surgery trainees and recent graduates in the academic years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, and responses were recorded anonymously.ResultsDuring the 2 years of the survey, the response rate was 30% (n = 367/1196). The respondents were 55% (n = 202) integrated vascular residents and 45% (n = 165) vascular surgery fellows. In each year of the survey, 60% (n = 102/170) and 58% (n = 86/148) of trainees expressed a desire to pursue academics in their careers, whereas 37% (n = 63/174) and 35% (n = 53/152) indicated their program had structured academic development time (2016-2017 and 2017-2018, respectively). Fifty-five percent (n = 96/174) and 52% (n = 79/152) stated that the overall impact of collaborative learners was positive. More than 60% of respondents in both years of the survey indicated experiencing one or more symptoms of distress on a weekly basis. The frequency of distress was associated with older age and with the presence of an advanced degree in both years of the survey. Sex, level of training, presence of collaborative learners, and having protected research time were not associated with frequency of distress in either year of the survey.ConclusionsThese results highlight an opportunity for programs to further evaluate the needs of their trainees for academic development during vascular surgery training to better accommodate trainees' career goals. Further investigation to identify modifiable risk factors for distress among vascular surgery trainees is warranted.