Duty-hour restrictions and the work of surgical faculty: results of a multi-institutional study.

PURPOSE: To examine whether duty-hour restrictions have been consequential for various aspects of the work of surgical faculty and if those consequences differ for faculty in academic and nonacademic general surgery residency programs. METHOD: Questionnaires were distributed in 2004 to 233 faculty members in five academic and four nonacademic U.S. residency programs in general surgery. Participation was restricted to those who had been faculty for at least one year. Ten items on the questionnaire probed faculty work experiences. Results include means, percentages, and t-tests on mean differences. Of the 146 faculty members (63%) who completed the questionnaire, 101 volunteered to be interviewed. Of these, 28 were randomly chosen for follow-up interviews that probed experiences and rationales underlying items on the questionnaire. Interview transcripts (187 single-spaced pages) were analyzed for main themes. RESULTS: Questionnaire respondents and interviewees associated duty-hour restrictions with lowered faculty expectations and standards for residents, little change in the supervision of residents, a loss of time for teaching, increased work and stress, and less satisfaction. No significant differences in these perceptions (p < or = .05) were found for faculty in academic and nonacademic programs. Main themes from the interviews included a shift of routine work from residents to faculty, a transfer of responsibility to faculty, more frequent skill gaps at night, a loss of time for research, and the challenges of controlling residents' hours. CONCLUSIONS: Duty-hour restrictions have been consequential for the work of surgical faculty. Faculty should not be overlooked in future studies of duty-hour restrictions.

How surgical faculty and residents assess the first year of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour restrictions: results of a multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND: This study examined how surgical residents and faculty assessed the first year of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour restrictions. METHODS: Questionnaires were administered in 9 general-surgery programs during the summer of 2004; response rates were 63% for faculty and 58% for residents (N = 259). Questions probed patient care, the residency program, quality of life, and overall assessments of the duty-hour restrictions. Results include the means, mean deviations, percentage who agree or strongly agree with the hour restrictions, and significance tests. RESULTS: Although most support the restrictions, few maintain that they improved surgical training or patient care. Faculty and residents differed (P < or = .05) on 16 of 21 items. Every difference shows that residents view the restrictions more favorably than faculty. The sex of the resident shaped the magnitude of the gap for 11 of 21 items. CONCLUSIONS: Few believe that duty-hour restrictions improve patient care or resident training. Residents, especially female residents, view the restrictions more favorably than faculty.

Why do residents leave general surgery? The hidden problem in today's programs.

OBJECTIVE: Much has been written and discussed about the reasons for reduced interest in surgery, but few institutions have chosen to examine the loss or attrition of general surgery residents from their own programs. In preparation for an upcoming Residency Review Committee analysis of our program, we took the opportunity to examine the reasons for attrition in our own institution. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: During the years 1990 to 2003, 120 categorical residents were admitted into our general surgery residency program. Residents who matched into preliminary positions or non-5-year categorical positions were not included in this study. During this period of time, 20 residents (9 female and 11 male) left the program for a variety of reasons. The folders of those 20 residents along with all of the correspondence pertaining to each resident were reviewed in detail. RESULTS: Our overall attrition rate during this 13-year period of time was 20 of 120 residents or 17%. This is comparable with the often-quoted figure of approximately 20% attrition in other general surgery programs. The reasons for leaving could be divided into 4 categories: (1) lifestyle, (2) opportunity for early specialization, (3) asked to leave the program because of emotional or performance difficulties, or (4) decided to leave medicine entirely. The largest group was related to lifestyle issues and comprised 13 of the total of 20 residents who left the program. Of this group of 13, 3 went into plastic surgery, 4 went into anesthesiology, 2 went into radiology, and the remaining 4 went into public health, internal medicine, pathology, and emergency medicine. Seven of these 13 individuals were women. Two individuals entered residency with the goal of specializing in plastic surgery. They both left their 5-year categorical general surgery positions after the third year when they were offered the opportunity to enter three-year plastic surgery fellowship positions. The third category was composed of 4 individuals who were asked to leave the program during this 13-year period because of performance or emotional problems, with 3 of these 4 being men. Only 1 person left medicine entirely, and he is now the vice-president of a successful software company. Of the total of 20 residents who left our program, 9 (45%) were female. Given that there were 33 females in our program during the subject period of time, these 9 females represent an attrition rate of 27%. The 11 males who left during this period represent, however, an attrition rate of only 13%. CONCLUSIONS: Although much concern has been expressed over the declining numbers of medical students interested in surgery, loss of residents after matching in general surgery is an equally significant problem. In our program over a 13-year period, 20 out 120 residents, or 17% dropped out or were released. The attrition rate for females (27%) was approximately twice that of males (13%), with 7 out of 9 females (78%) leaving for lifestyle reasons.

Reducing surgical site infections through a multidisciplinary computerized process for preoperative prophylactic antibiotic administration.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) result in significant postoperative morbidity and mortality. Although many of these infections can be prevented by timely administration of preoperative antibiotics, data suggest that many patients do not receive such therapy. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team was convened that reviewed published guidelines, made antibiotic recommendations, and addressed administration issues. Responsibility for antibiotic administration was shifted from preoperative nursing staff to the anesthetist. Electronic quick orders were developed to encourage appropriate antibiotic selection and simplify order creation. RESULTS: Timely administration of preoperative antibiotics improved from 51% to 98% from February 2005 to February 2006. Appropriate antibiotic administered improved from 78% to 94%. The clean wound infection rate decreased from 2.7% to 1.4% over the same time period. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary approach to prophylactic antibiotic use, including computer-guided decision support, facilitates appropriate preoperative antibiotic use, resulting in a significant decrease in surgical wound infections.

Informed versus uninformed consent for prostate surgery: the value of electronic consents.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the documentation of informed consent for 2 common prostate operations using current, conventional, paper based consent forms. Based on the results of the review the conventional paper based consent system was replaced with a new, standardized electronic consent system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the consent forms obtained for transurethral resection of the prostate and radical prostatectomy procedures during the 6-year period 1995 to 2000 at Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Analysis focused on the basic elements of informed consent, including a description of the proposed treatment, and the purpose, benefits, risks and alternatives. Based on these findings we standardized the procedure specific information contained in consent forms and stored it electronically in a central network accessible to all urology providers throughout the medical center. RESULTS: Of the 222 total procedures 204 consent forms were available for review. Senior residents, junior residents and physician assistants obtained consent for 42.2%, 30.9% and 25.5% of procedures, respectively. Information on the purpose and benefits of treatment was missing in 4.4% of cases and deficient in 22.6%. General or procedure specific risks were documented inconsistently in 0% to 96% of cases. Alternative treatment options were missing in 49% of the consent forms and they were significantly deficient in the remaining 51%. Prognosis and surgical risks were documented variably for each procedure. For example, in the radical prostatectomy group 79 patients (88.8%) had appropriate documentation regarding the potential for significant blood loss and yet only 23 (25.8%) had documented consent for blood transfusion. Following the implementation of a new standardized electronic consent program 96.1% of the patients surveyed preferred the new system. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional nonstandardized consent forms have significant deficiencies and errors. The new system of electronic informed consent is standardized, legible and understandable, and it assists providers in fully informing patients about the treatment, risks, benefits and alternative therapies, thereby supporting ethical and legal standards, and improving the quality of care. In our opinion standardized electronic informed consent should be the new standard of care.