Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

A new professionalism? Surgical residents, duty hours restrictions, and shift transitions

  • James E. Coverdill
  • , Alfredo M. Carbonell
  • , Jonathan Fryer
  • , George M. Fuhrman
  • , Kristi L. Harold
  • , Jonathan R. Hiatt
  • , Benjamin T. Jarman
  • , Richard A. Moore
  • , Don K. Nakayama
  • , M. Timothy Nelson
  • , Marc Schlatter
  • , Richard A. Sidwell
  • , John L. Tarpley
  • , Paula M. Termuhlen
  • , Christopher Wohltmann
  • , John D. Mellinger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Some anticipated that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty hours restrictions would foster a team-focused "new professionalism" among residents. This study explores the prevalence and challenges of a new professionalism and whether they vary by program size. METHOD: Questionnaires distributed in 15 general surgery programs produced an 82% response rate (N = 306); 52 semistructured follow-up interviews were completed. Results include means, percentage who "agree or strongly agree," significance tests, and main themes from the interviews. RESULTS: A new professionalism is limited by residents' reluctance to pass work from day to night teams, unclear guidance regarding stay-or-go decisions during shift transitions, little educational emphasis on sign-outs, and the practice of long hours in the name of professionalism. Program size is largely unassociated with these beliefs and behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: A new professionalism represents a stalled revolution among surgical residents. The new professionalism's emphasis on teamwork requires additional attention to staffing and workload management.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)S72-S75
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume85
Issue number10 SUPPL.
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2010

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A new professionalism? Surgical residents, duty hours restrictions, and shift transitions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this