Search for a command to run...
In the recent study by Kupferman and Lian,1 otolaryngology program directors responding to a written survey overwhelmingly believed that the resident duty hour standards mandated by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) had negatively impacted the resident experience (81%) and did not improve patient care (84%). In addition, 52% of the otolaryngology program directors responding to the survey felt that their residents did not have a favorable impression of the work hour changes.1 It is very likely, however, that the program directors' opinions of their residents' viewpoints were colored by their own negative perceptions of the new regulations. Fortunately, information obtained directly from residents regarding their own perceptions of the duty hour standards is available. In response to resident concerns following implementation of the ACGME resident duty hour standards in July 2003, the Section for Residents and Fellows of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (SRF/AAO-HNS) included questions about the perceived effects of the new duty hour rules in its 2004 Annual Survey. The internet-based survey was the third survey conducted by the SRF and received a 55% response rate. The findings of the survey were made available on the AAO-HNS website.2 The vast majority of respondents to the SRF survey agreed that the new duty hour limits had a positive impact on quality of life (81%), time for reading (78%), and morale (65%). In addition, 54% of those responding to the survey felt that the work hour limits had a positive impact on patient care. Only 44% of residents agreed that the work hour limits had a positive impact on clinical skills and 37% agreed that surgical skills were positively influenced. While the majority of residents believed that their clinical and surgical skills were not positively influenced by the duty hour regulations, it is remarkable that 37% of residents felt the duty hour limits had a positive impact on their surgical skills. Possible explanations for this finding include less fatigue and more time for reading and preparation prior to surgery. The findings of the aforementioned surveys indicate that while most program directors are pessimistic about the impact of the ACGME work hour limits, otolaryngology residents tend to view the changes more favorably. Public safety concerns will continue to mandate resident work hour limits, although it may prove necessary to change the current system as more data is gathered. Any modifications to the existing ACGME guidelines, however, will require thorough documentation and objective evidence of any perceived negative consequences of the policy. The SRF Annual Survey is a useful tool for gathering information from a large number of otolaryngologists-in-training from across the country. In addition, the results of the survey can be compared over time to track trends and assess the impact of various changes to the resident training environment. Extending future surveys to include recent residency graduates in their first few years of practice may also prove useful in determining whether or not residency programs are providing residents with the training they need to practice independently. The SRF is open to collaborating with interested parties in developing future survey questions to be included in the SRF Annual Survey.