NEJM: Sleepy Surgeons Should Get Patient Consent

An editorial in the The New England Journal of Medicine recommends that patients provide informed, written consent to undergo elective surgery by physicians who haven't had enough sleep. Steve Mirsky reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Over the years regulations have developed to limit the hours of hospital interns and residents. Because someone putting in a 100-hour workweek might not be at their best when deciding which medication to prescribe or when inserting a Foley catheter. But doctors who have finished their training don’t face any restrictions in their hours. Now The New England Journal of Medicine argues in an editorial that sleep-deprived physicians set to perform elective surgery should have to get the informed consent of the patient. [Michael Nurok, Charles Czeisler, and Lisa Soleymani Lehmann, "Sleep Deprivation, Elective Surgical Procedures, and Informed Consent"]

Sleep deprivation can impair motor skills as much as alcohol intoxication can. The editorial cites a 2009 study in the Journal of the American Medical Associationthat found an increase in the risk for complications in patients who had elective surgery performed by surgeons who’d had the chance for less six hours of sleep during a previous on-call night.

The editorial’s authors note that such consent represents a new responsibility for patients in making decisions about their care. It could damage the patient-doctor relationship. But, they say, "This shift may be necessary until institutions take the responsibility for ensuring that patients rarely face such dilemmas."


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.


—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

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