Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26457145›Full record

ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2015

Duty Hour Reporting: Conflicting Values in Professionalism.

John M Byrne, Lawrence K Loo, Dan W Giang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Duty Hours Tracking - Is There an App for That?Journal of medical education and curricular development
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

John M Byrne
Lawrence K Loo
Dan W Giang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuty hour limits challenge professional values, sometimes forcing residents to choose between patient care and regulatory compliance. This may affect truthfulness in duty hour reporting.

objectiveWe assessed residents' reasons for falsifying duty hour reports.

methodsWe surveyed residents in 1 sponsoring institution to explore the reasons for noncompliance, frequency of violations, falsification of reports, and the residents' awareness of the option to extend hours to care for a single patient. The analysis used descriptive statistics. Linear regression was used to explore falsification of duty hour reports by year of training.

resultsThe response rate was 88% (572 of 650). Primary reasons for duty hour violations were number of patients (19%) and individual patient acuity/complexity (19%). Junior residents were significantly more likely to falsify duty hours (R = -0.966). Of 124 residents who acknowledged falsification, 51 (41%) identified the primary reason as concern that the program will be in jeopardy of violating the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty hour limits followed by fear of punishment (34, 27%). This accounted for more than two-thirds of the primary reasons for falsification.

conclusionsResidents' falsification of duty hour data appears to be motivated by concerns about adverse actions from the ACGME, and fear they might be punished. To foster professionalism, we recommend that sponsoring institutions educate residents about professionalism in duty hour reporting. The ACGME should also convey the message that duty hour limits be applied in a no-blame systems-based approach, and allow junior residents to extend duty hours for the care of individual patients.

Indexed as

DeceptionInternship and ResidencyAccreditationClinical CompetenceEducation, Medical, GraduateFemaleHumansMalePersonnel Staffing and SchedulingSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesWorkloadWork Schedule Tolerance

Identifiers

PMID26457145
PMCPMC4597950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.