Medical Residents Overworked Despite New Work Limits

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Young doctors in their first year out of medical school regularly toil beyond highly publicized new limits on their working hours, according to newly published results from a Web-based survey. The work limits, which went into effect three years ago, were meant to address the concern that hospitals overburdened these physicians in training, or residency, thereby putting patients at risk of serious medical errors. Another survey finds that the extended hours made first-year residents more likely to jab or cut themselves with a needle or scalpel.

Working 80 to 100 hours a week or even more was long considered normal for residents, on the grounds that such training taught them to operate under stress and provide complete patient care. Of course, grueling hours also double a resident's chance of getting into a car crash and make them one third more likely to commit a serious error, studies had found. In June 2003, prompted by proposed legislation to restrict residents' hours, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education began limiting residents to 30 consecutive hours and 80 hours a week, averaged over four weeks.

Those caps were routinely violated in the ensuing year, according to a report in the September 6 Journal of the American Medical Association. Between July 2002 and May 2004, more than 4,000 participating interns from all specialties filled out monthly online work- and sleep-hour logs. Of those surveyed after the new rules took hold, 84 percent reported one or more violations after the new limits went into effect; 67 percent worked more than 30 hours consecutively at least once, and 43 percent exceeded 80 hours per week, averaged over four weeks. Around half of all monthly logs reported a violation. "Across specialties and across the country the rate of compliance has been extremely poor," says the study's lead author Christopher Landrigan, a sleep and patient safety researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital at Harvard.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Moreover, the new work limits still leave interns at risk. A second survey found that interns were 61 percent more likely to cut or jab themselves while working 20-plus-hour shifts, with injuries occurring after an average of 29 hours. Medical culture works against the limits, explains Daniel Vo, a pediatrics intern at New York Presbyterian-Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center. After a long shift, he says, "it feels like you either haven't finished all you need to do for the patients, or you're dumping the rest of your work on your teammates."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe