ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020
Does Increased Schedule Flexibility Lead to Change? A National Survey of Program Directors on 2017 Work Hours Requirements.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 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.
objectiveWe sought to determine program directors' (PDs) support for the work hour changes and programmatic response.
designIn 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
resultsThe 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%).
conclusionsAlthough 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.
Indexed as
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.