How surgical faculty and residents assess the first year of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour restrictions: Results of a multi-institutional study

Background: This study examined how surgical residents and faculty assessed the first year of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour restrictions. Methods: Questionnaires 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. Results: Although most support the restrictions, few maintain that they improved surgical training or patient care. Faculty and residents differed (P ≤ .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. Conclusions: Few believe that duty-hour restrictions improve patient care or resident training. Residents, especially female residents, view the restrictions more favorably than faculty.