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:Background: Whether graduating pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellows feel adequately trained in interstitial lung disease (ILD) remains unknown. In addition, there are no published data describing the current approach to educating trainees about ILD. Objective: To characterize the present state of ILD training during fellowship and to determine graduating PCCM fellows' perceived abilities to diagnose and manage ILD. Methods: We surveyed PCCM fellowship program directors nationwide and compared their perceptions of graduating fellows' abilities to diagnose, provide initial management to, and offer longitudinal care to patients with ILD using a series of unpaired t tests. We also inquired about existing practices for educating fellows about ILD. We then surveyed graduating PCCM fellows from 19 different preselected programs to assess comfort level with ILD in comparison with other core clinical domains. Results: Program director respondents (n = 74, 40% response rate) rated graduating fellows' abilities to establish specific ILD diagnoses and to provide initial management similarly (4.3 ± 0.8 on five-point Likert scale), whereas the ability to provide longitudinal expert care was rated significantly lower (3.8 ± 0.9, P = 0.001). Most respondents (n = 52, 70.3%) reported having dedicated outpatient ILD specialists with whom fellows could rotate, but only half required this rotation. In addition, very few (n = 17, 23.0%) reported that a majority of patients with suspected or newly diagnosed ILD were scheduled in fellow clinics, many of whom received subsequent longitudinal care from dedicated ILD specialists. Among 71 third-year fellow respondents, confidence in managing ILD was rated poorly (3.2 ± 1.0 on a five-point Likert scale) in contrast to more common diseases like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.4 ± 0.7, P < 0.001) and asthma (4.2 ± 0.8, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Trainee exposure to ILD in both clinical and educational settings varied across PCCM fellowships nationwide. Fellows nearing graduation were significantly less confident in their ability to manage ILD compared with other more common pulmonary diseases.

Project description:BackgroundCase-based Morning Report (MR) has long been the predominant educational conference in Internal Medicine (IM) residency programs. The last comprehensive survey of IM MR was in 1986. Much has changed in the healthcare landscape since 1986 that may impact MR.ObjectiveWe sought to determine the current state of MR across all US IM programs.DesignIn 2018, US IM program directors (PDs) were surveyed about the dynamics of MR at their institutions, perceived pressures, and realized changes.Key resultsThe response rate was 70.2% (275/392). MR remains highly prevalent (97.5% of programs), although held less frequently (mean 3.9 days/week, SD 1.2), for less time (mean 49.4 min, SD 12.3), and often later in the day compared to 1986. MR attendees have changed, with more diversity of learners but less presence of educational leaders. PD presence at MR is associated with increased resident attendance (high attendance: 78% vs 61%, p=0.0062) and punctuality (strongly agree/agree: 59% vs 43%, p=0.0161). The most cited goal for MR is utilizing cases to practice clinical reasoning. Nearly 40% of PDs feel pressure to move or cancel MR; of those, 61.2% have done so, most commonly changing the timing (48.5%), reducing the length (18.4%), and reducing the number of sessions per week (11.7%). Compared to community-based and to community-based, university-affiliated programs, university-based programs have 2.9 times greater odds (95% CI: 1.3, 6.9; p = 0.0081) and 2.5 times greater odds (95% CI 1.5, 4.4; p =0.0007), respectively, of holding MR after 9 AM, and 1.8 times greater odds (95% CI: 0.8, 4.2; p = 0.1367) and 2.0 times greater odds (95% CI: 1.2, 3.5; p = 0.0117), respectively, of reporting pressure to cancel or move MR compared to their counterparts.ConclusionsWhile MR ubiquity reflects its continued perceived value, PDs have modified MR to accommodate changes in the healthcare environment. This includes reduced frequency, shorter length, and moving conferences later in the day. Additional studies are needed to understand how these changes impact learning.