Abstract
BACKGROUND: In late 2008, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a report recommending more restrictive limits on resident work hours to promote patient safety. Reaction from the graduate medical education community has focused on concerns about a lack of evidence supporting the IOM's recommendations. We highlight 3 concerns with the report: 1) a disproportionate attention to resident fatigue when changes in other areas may have a larger impact on patient safety. Data supporting a causal link between resident fatigue and medical errors that harm patients are not robust. Two areas where data support a stronger impact on patient safety include resident supervision and transitions of care; 2) a "one size fits all" model when specialty-specific recommendations may be more appropriate. For example, 16 hours on task is not at all similar for residents in different specialties (ie, surgery and primary care); and 3) the absence of a process to evaluate the impact of current or potential duty hour requirements on outcomes. Because these potential impacts have not been sufficiently researched, it is premature to support additional changes at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS: TO MOVE FORWARD IN A COMPREHENSIVE MANNER, WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING: 1) support more research to evaluate the effects of duty hours in conjunction with other interrelated factors on patient safety, 2) encourage individual Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Review committees to develop specialty specific duty hour limitations, and 3) develop partnerships between the IOM, ACGME, and the institutions directly involved with medical education to study how to maximize patient safety while maintaining quality educational outcomes.