ArticlePRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)2018
A 3-Year Study of Resident Reaction to 2011 ACGME Work Hour Rules in a Family Medicine Residency.
Article in PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building a data-driven evaluation framework of physician wellness initiatives: a rapid review.BMJ open · 2026Review
- Residents' perspective on duty hours at an Israeli tertiary hospital.Israel journal of health policy research · 2022Article
- Urology Residents' Perspectives on the In-House On-Call Systems: A Study in an Accredited Academic Center.Qatar medical journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction2011 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) work hour rules prompted concerns regarding potential negative impacts on patient care and resident education. We were interested in resident reaction to call restructuring and night oat (NF) in a family medicine residency over 3 years following implementation of the 2011 rules.
methodsWe conducted structured interviews of residents from 2011-2012 through 2013-2014. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes.
resultsFifty-eight interviews were conducted, including 18/18 residents in 2011-2012 (100%), 18/20 residents in 2012-2013 (90%), and 22/22 residents in 2013-2014 (100%). Following introduction of the 24-hour work limit, upper year residents reported significantly less fatigue and improved personal lives, patient care, and educational experience. Reactions to NF varied with length and intensity of the NF rotation; most PGY-1 residents reported increased fatigue, more burnout, and worse personal lives on NF. Most residents felt patient care quality on NF did not differ from non-NF rotations because improved inpatient nighttime continuity mitigated effects of fatigue and increased care transitions. Reactions regarding educational experience on NF were initially negative, but improved over time.
conclusionsResidents' reactions to 2011 ACGME work hour rules suggest the rules improved resident well-being, except on NF. Negative effects of NF may be minimized by limiting NF rotations to 5 nights/week for 2 consecutive weeks, and 1 month total per academic year.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.