Medical Forum / General / General / October 2006
Long hours - both patients and doctors at risk; mandatory restrictions on hours?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
J - 26 Oct 2006 11:23 GMT Crosspost to sci.med sci.med.radiology sci.med.diseases.cancer sci.med.nursing
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/10/25/1161749190007.html
Hospital doctor worked 107-hour week, audit finds
Carol Nader October 26, 2006
A DOCTOR who worked 107 hours in one week at a Victorian hospital is one of many who are jeopardising their health because of extraordinarily long hours on the job, according to a national audit of doctors.
In another case, a junior doctor working in an emergency department at a regional Victorian hospital worked a 100-hour week, including one shift that lasted 34 hours.
The results have again raised questions about whether there should be mandatory limits on the number of hours doctors may work.
The Australian Medical Association, which released the Victorian results of the survey to The Age, ahead of the release of the national results in Canberra today, says the figures are evidence that a cultural problem persists in hospitals.
More than 500 doctors across the country responded to the AMA's "safe hours" survey, including 188 in Victoria. The audit tracked the hours doctors worked in the week of May 8 to 14 this year.
The Age reported last month that two young doctors had committed suicide in the past year, bringing the culture in which young doctors work under scrutiny. But the results of the AMA survey show that it is not just young doctors who are at risk.
Among the respondents to the survey, a regional Victoria trainee surgeon reported working more than 70 hours a week, with 17 hours in one day, and no days off over a three-week period. A senior Melbourne doctor worked two consecutive weeks of more than 70 hours each, including a 17-hour day.
The Victorian results also show: 61 per cent of doctors work hours that place them at significant (45 per cent) and higher (16 per cent) risk of fatigue. The longest reported working week was 107 hours and the longest reported shift was 37 hours. The average weekly working hours for doctors in the higher risk category was 77 hours.
38 per cent of Victorian surgical trainees were in the high-risk category, compared with 17 per cent of trainees across all specialties.
When the AMA national and state presidents meet next week, they will consider whether there should be a push for mandatory restrictions on hours. National president Mukesh Haikerwal said the hours were unacceptable for both doctors and patients, who did not want to be operated on by doctors who were not completely alert. "I think we're going to have to push hard now for some commitment from governments over and above what's in the enterprise bargaining agreements, some commitment to safe rostering and safe hours," he said. "We may need to see that's mandated in due course."
Dr Haikerwal said when doctors worked at least 12 hours, they entered the "significant risk" category. Once they worked 18 hours they were at high risk of fatigue.
Ben Hart, spokesman for state Health Minister Bronwyn Pike, said the Government had employed 1576 more doctors since coming to office. "We have worked to take the pressure off by employing more people, but this is not as simple as more doctors," he said. "This is a complex issue influenced by a number of different factors, many of them cultural, and we consider it a very important issue and will continue to discuss the matter with the AMA."
Jack Warhaft, medical director of the Victorian Doctors Health Program, said the survey results were disappointing. "This was the sort of work environment that we took for granted a generation or two ago," he said. "It's disappointing to see that it's still as bad as this in 2006
What other profession, I ask you, has a consultant surgeon or indeed any doctor having to work half the night or all the night and then do a normal day's work the next day?"
Dr Warhaft said workplace problems, including long hours, were a major source of stress and anxiety disorders.
Any doctors in distress can call the Victorian Doctors Health Program for assistance on 9495 6011.
akoffman@gmail.com - 26 Oct 2006 12:52 GMT YAWN!
Old news
http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2005/residentsleep.htm
http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/dutyHours/dh_resdutyhr.pdf
Perhaps Austraila should read world trends.
> Crosspost to sci.med sci.med.radiology sci.med.diseases.cancer > sci.med.nursing [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > Any doctors in distress can call the Victorian Doctors Health Program for > assistance on 9495 6011. I.P. Freely - 26 Oct 2006 18:37 GMT > Hospital doctor worked 107-hour week, audit finds > The results have again raised questions about whether > there should be mandatory limits on the number of > hours doctors may work. SNIP . . .
Sorry about the soapbox, but employee abuse has long been a sore spot with me.
Certainly the problem is exacerbated by the fact that our health and/or lives are in their hands, but extreme overwork is common in many other fields as well, at least in the U.S. Causes include abusive bosses, workaholism, individual competitiveness, promotion fever, genuine short-term emergencies, and job insecurity -- only one and a half of which I consider valid reasons for significant overtime. The rest, with one notable exception, have a common solution.
The one and a half? One: short-term real emergencies, too sudden and brief and rare to be solved by extra hiring. Everyone should be willing to donate extra time in cases like that, especially if there's some degree of compensation available and/or it's a request, not a do-or-die command. The half: those workaholics who simply love their work that much (as opposed to the saps who feel compelled to be slaves). Think Bill Gates watches a clock?
The exception? The operational military in time of war. Many of those people WISH they got half the sleep interns get, and lives -- hell, NATIONS -- depend on them.
The common solution for the rest of us? Refuse. Unless supply greatly exceeds demand, who's going to fire an qualified, trained employee? And if they ARE fired, there's usually a comparable or better job right around the corner (and, in the U.S., at least three lawyers eager to take their case to court).
Why and how are doctors any different? What sane hospital administrator is going to fire a good doctor just because the doctor has the spine to say, "Enough"? With unemployment near record lows (at least in the U.S.), almost everyone, not just physicians, are in demand.
My position has always been that if my employer often needs twice as much work done as he has the people for, he can damned well hire more people rather than abuse the ones he has. The only subordinate of mine I allowed to work ridiculous hours was strong, young Jeff. who had just been dumped by his fiance; he couldn't sleep anyway, loved his work, and DIDN'T HAVE LIVES DEPENDING ON HIM in the short term.
IOW, is there some reason doctors can't cut their hours back to a "mere" 60 or 80 hours a week and tell the hospital to just hire more doctors IF THEY CAN FIND THEM? Costs, you say? How many doctors can they hire for the cost of one lost suit for fatigue-induced malpractice? Physicians swear to do no harm, but only the most arrogant person -- and who's ever heard of an arrogant physician? -- could believe s/he does no harm when treating someone after 20 hours on the job. I've caught WAY too many nurses and doctors working normal hours yet making serious mistakes just on ME to think providers are doing patients a favor working 20-hour days.
I chose 40 hours for most of my workweeks, working more only by MY infrequent choice, not "theirs", because I had a life beyond my work and enjoy being healthy. But then I'm not a doctor, so what the heck do I know about compulsory slavery . . . I was just a military officer in non-combat positions.
I.P. Freely
Steph - 27 Oct 2006 07:25 GMT >> Hospital doctor worked 107-hour week, audit finds > > The results have again raised questions about whether [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Why and how are doctors any different? An ethical requirement not to abandon the patient unless there is someone else to take over? You can't extrapolate factory or office work practice to medicine.
I.P. Freely - 27 Oct 2006 18:57 GMT >> The common solution for the rest of us? Refuse. Unless supply greatly >> exceeds demand, who's going to fire an qualified, trained employee? And if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Why and how are doctors any different?
> An ethical requirement not to abandon the patient unless there is someone > else to take over? > You can't extrapolate factory or office work practice to medicine. Across the board, no. But how about accepting fewer patients, recognizing that sleep-deprived zombies often do more harm than good (much under 7 hours of sleep per day impacts mental performance as much as being legally intoxicated), and/or flooding the system with nurses and PAs for the vast majority of followup care? Certainly we all want dedicated physicians, but sleep deprivation renders them downright dangerous. For the vast majority of medical problems, I'd choose an alert good doctor over a brilliant zombie. And I'd guess than most doctors would like a little time now and then for personal lives, including sleep.
Or how about this radical idea: reduce the administrative and legal BS that is driving so many doctors and potential med students away from practice and school. I.e., solve the problem with juicy carrots rather than government sticks.
I.P.
Steph - 27 Oct 2006 20:56 GMT >>> The common solution for the rest of us? Refuse. Unless supply greatly >>> exceeds demand, who's going to fire an qualified, trained employee? And [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I.P. I agree, but until it's done, the overwork will continue. In my cancer clinic, I don't have direct control over the number of patients I see........if they are referred, they will be seen. If the numbers get too out of whack, the government will provide funding for an additional oncologist (if one can be found). But simply saying "That's it, I've done enough, I'm going home" is not a realistic option in medicine.
I.P. Freely - 27 Oct 2006 22:37 GMT > until it's done, the overwork will continue. > In my cancer clinic, I don't have direct control over the number of patients > I see........if they are referred, they will be seen. If the numbers get too > out of whack, the government will provide funding for an additional > oncologist (if one can be found). But simply saying "That's it, I've done > enough, I'm going home" is not a realistic option in medicine. At some point of performance degradation(there really ARE only 168 hours in a week), a provider MUST walk out the door; cortisol goes only so far or for so long. Only the individual physician (or maybe more accurately her staff) knows at what level of overwork her performance degrades to an unacceptable level. And, IMO, "overwork" includes not only sleep derivation but deprivation of less measurable personal regeneration. I got through engineering school on about 4 hours of sleep most nights, but I'd never want my physician -- certainly my SURGEON -- to be that impaired. Nor would I want her to be on the drugs today's soldiers must use in combat.
I've caught providers making serious mistakes on me far too often, and they worked "normal" shifts. I can't imagine being a medically ignorant patient at the mercy of providers who think they can actually perform well without adequate rest, and extensive research pegs "adequate rest" at far closer to 7-8 hours than 3-4 hours of sleep on a routine basis. Neither intellect nor self-confidence makes medical providers immune to the physiological ravages of chronic fatigue.
I'll bet that if enough physicians defined some realistic limit to work loads and adhered to them, public outcry would solve the physician shortage. Failing that, maybe legislative limits ARE in order, but only as a last resort; I HATE the thought or reality of having my health care governed by The Government. I'd walk out the door the minute my provider's eyelids drooped, and would not tolerate having to wait many weeks to see the doctor of my choice. But I'm coming from a capitalist society driven by supply and demand, not from a nationalized system run by bureaucrats. As one sage said of the potential threat of socialized medicine in the U.S,, "If you think the medical care system is expensive now, wait until it's free." The same applies if one substitutes "overloaded" for "expensive".
I realize that I'm naive in both nationalized health care (I can always and often do walk away from my socialized U.S. VA system) and the medical profession, but I am very familiar with people trying to do too much for a variety of excuses and/or reasons, most of them surmountable.
I.P.
Steph - 27 Oct 2006 23:12 GMT >> until it's done, the overwork will continue. >> In my cancer clinic, I don't have direct control over the number of [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > it's free." The same applies if one substitutes "overloaded" for > "expensive". Well, the US system costs about 1.5 times the Canadian system as a proportion of GDP, and does worse by almost all cogent measures of outcome, so I think your sage is more of an onion..........
I.P. Freely - 28 Oct 2006 01:55 GMT > the US system costs about 1.5 times the Canadian system as a > proportion of GDP, and does worse by almost all cogent measures of outcome, I've seen highly regarded studies from both governments and from independent agencies reach dramatically opposite conclusions, and our Democratic Party's national health plan was implemented with their guidance in at least two U.S. states (Tennessee and Washington) with drastic results, so there's no point debating that issue at this level.
All I know from personal experience is that I had to circumvent our socialized VA system to: 1) get attention for my soaring PSA, 2) choose and consult at length about eight specialists in four different cities and agencies within weeks of noticing my rising PSA flag, 3) help multiple surgical clinics define an unusual dual-cancer surgical treatment, 4) schedule and complete the surgery on MY schedule, which was about a year ahead of the VA's, 5) change my oncology team's recommended post-op adjuvant treatment philosophy and specific advice by presenting to them dozens of bullet points condensed from hundreds of hours of literature research, and 6) receive guidance from my oncologists via phone or e-mail within hours of my requests, two years post-op.
I get the distinct impression that's not easy in the U.K.
I.P.
Steph - 28 Oct 2006 06:51 GMT >> the US system costs about 1.5 times the Canadian system as a >> proportion of GDP, and does worse by almost all cogent measures of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I.P. I'm sure you are right. However, self directed management isn't necessarily the best management. Multiple opinions are not multiplicative, and not even additive. The most medicine isn't the same as the best medicine.
I.P. Freely - 28 Oct 2006 23:12 GMT Steph, I recognize and appreciate the valuable time you're putting into this discussion. I hope that our comments give many people, including both providers and patients, food for thought. No one will fault you if "your beeper goes off" and you have to run off to more urgent tasks . . . including a nap. I also consider this a topic worthy of cross-posting.
> However, self directed management isn't necessarily the best management. "Necessarily", no, but you be the judge in these cases, which I have no reason to assume are unique (other than simultaneous diagnoses of carcinoid colon cancer and PC): a. I instigated the removal of both my unrelated cancers -- carcinoid colon and prostate -- in one procedure rather than independent treatments, minimizing the risks of delay and multiple independent treatments. b. My matrix of symptoms vs possible causes helped several specialists resolve a years-old diagnosis debate that ultimately disproved brain stem emboli in favor of Meniere's disease. c. When the VA ignored my PSA rise from 2 to 4 to 6 in successive years and paid only minimal attention at 8.8, I went outside the system and got diagnosed and treated in two-three months rather than a year. d. In the U.S., few urologists and oncologists prescribe a PC treatment, preferring instead to educate the patient and have him choose his future from the menu of intended and unintended effects associated with the many treatment options, based on each patient's personal priorities. If that weren't tough enough, studies and our forum's experience show that most physicians do a poor job of educating their PC patients, especially regarding side effects. e. While my doctors argue over whether my severe, debilitating, widespread muscle pain was induced by my Simvastatin, I went off the dang stuff and began to improve. My docs can settle their beef on their time while I continue to heal, borderline lipids be damned for now. f. Not to mention the number of times I've caught and prevented potentially serious medical errors (e..g., 1,000% overdose in an allergy shot, WAY too much CNS depressant while on morphine, strongly contraindicated medicine combinations, ignorance of erectile dysfunction's implications of vascular disease, giving senna-based laxatives to ulcer patients). g. And, ultimately, I'll go to my grave, with or without PC, confident that I have only myself to blame if my choices along the way were wrong, because a diverse team of medical professors, researchers, uro oncs, rad oncs, med oncs -- at least one with PC -- all concurred with my choices given my priorities in life. My surgeon even put one of my comments on his office wall as a reminder that no two patients are alike: "Our lives are defined not by the number of breaths we take, but the number of times our breath is taken away". i.e., no physician, especially not one whose sworn obsession is to drag my heartbeat out as long as medically possible, is qualified to unilaterally decide my next ten years for me.
> Multiple opinions are not multiplicative, and not even additive. > The most medicine isn't the same as the best medicine. No one would dispute that many PC cases present highly complicated treatment options, let alone given my carcinoid complication. I was reassured when my uro onc surgeon urged me to consult with rad onc and med onc specialists before choosing my initial PC treatment. Post-op, I was further reassured to know that my treatment was being discussed weekly by an interdisciplinary board of oncologists, given the complexity of adjuvant treatment options. I was especially glad they considered my ADT research summary and personal priorities assessment as valid input rather than just a layman's meaningless noise.
I.P.
Steph - 29 Oct 2006 01:22 GMT > Steph, I recognize and appreciate the valuable time you're putting into > this discussion. I hope that our comments give many people, including both [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > I.P. Unusual situations demand innovative approaches.
|
|
|