Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / October 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Long hours - both patients and doctors at risk; mandatory restrictions  on hours?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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.

Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.