Abstract
BACKGROUND: The balance between patient treatment risks and training residents to proficiency is confounded by duty-hour limits. Stricter limits have been recommended to enhance quality and safety, although supporting data are scarce. STUDY DESIGN: A previously piloted survey was delivered with the 2010 American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE). First postgraduate year (PGY1) and PGY2 trainees took the Junior examination (IJE); PGY3 and above took the Senior examination (ISE). Residency type, size, and location were linked to examinees using program codes. Five survey items queried all residents about the impact of further hour limits on care quality; online test residents answered 7 more items probing medical error sources. Data were analyzed using factorial ANOVA for association with sex, PGY level, and program demographics. RESULTS: There were 6,161 categorical surgery residents who took the ABSITE: 60% men, 60% ISE, and two-thirds in university programs. Paper (n = 5,079) and online (n = 1,082) examinees were similar. Item response rates ranged from 91% to 98%. Few (<25%) perceived that stricter hour limits would improve care quality to a large or maximal extent. IJE plus West and Northeast residents significantly more often favored fewer hours. Factors perceived as contributing to medical errors usually or always by ≥ 15% of residents were incomplete handoffs, inexperience or lack of knowledge, insufficient ancillary personnel, and excessive workload. CONCLUSIONS: Most categorical surgery residents do not perceive that reduced duty hours will noticeably improve quality of care. Resident perceptions of causes of medical errors suggest that system changes are more likely to enhance patient safety than further hour limits.