• James E Coverdill, Gina L Adrales, William Finlay, John D Mellinger, Kimberly D Anderson, Bruce W Bonnell, Joseph B Cofer, Douglas B Dorner, Carl Haisch, Kristi L Harold, Paula M Termuhlen, and Alexandra L B Webb.
• Department of Sociology, 214-B Baldwin Hall, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA. jimcov@uga.edu
• Am. J. Surg. 2006 Jan 1; 191 (1): 11-6.

BackgroundThis study examined how surgical residents and faculty assessed the first year of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour restrictions.MethodsQuestionnaires were administered in 9 general-surgery programs during the summer of 2004; response rates were 63% for faculty and 58% for residents (N = 259). Questions probed patient care, the residency program, quality of life, and overall assessments of the duty-hour restrictions. Results include the means, mean deviations, percentage who agree or strongly agree with the hour restrictions, and significance tests.ResultsAlthough most support the restrictions, few maintain that they improved surgical training or patient care. Faculty and residents differed (P < or = .05) on 16 of 21 items. Every difference shows that residents view the restrictions more favorably than faculty. The sex of the resident shaped the magnitude of the gap for 11 of 21 items.ConclusionsFew believe that duty-hour restrictions improve patient care or resident training. Residents, especially female residents, view the restrictions more favorably than faculty.

20 keywords...

hide…