Sleep and recovery in physicians on night call: a longitudinal field study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is well known that physicians' night-call duty may cause impaired performance and adverse effects on subjective health, but there is limited knowledge about effects on sleep duration and recovery time. In recent years occupational stress and impaired well-being among anaesthesiologists have been frequently reported for in the scientific literature. Given their main focus on handling patients with life-threatening conditions, when on call, one might expect sleep and recovery to be negatively affected by work, especially in this specialist group. The aim of the present study was to examine whether a 16-hour night-call schedule allowed for sufficient recovery in anaesthesiologists compared with other physician specialists handling less life-threatening conditions, when on call.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Sleep, monitored by actigraphy and Karolinska Sleep Diary/Sleepiness Scale on one night after daytime work, one night call, the following first and second nights post-call, and a Saturday night, was compared between 15 anaesthesiologists and 17 paediatricians and ear, nose, and throat surgeons.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Recovery patterns over the days after night call did not differ between groups, but between days. Mean night sleep for all physicians was 3 hours when on call, 7 h both nights post-call and Saturday, and 6 h after daytime work (p < 0.001). Scores for mental fatigue and feeling well rested were poorer post-call, but returned to Sunday morning levels after two nights' sleep.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Despite considerable sleep loss during work on night call, and unexpectedly short sleep after ordinary day work, the physicians' self-reports indicate full recovery after two nights' sleep. We conclude that these 16-hour night duties were compatible with a short-term recovery in both physician groups, but the limited sleep duration in general still implies a long-term health concern. These results may contribute to the establishment of safe working hours for night-call duty in physicians and other health-care workers.</p

US public opinion regarding proposed limits on resident physician work hours

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In both Europe and the US, resident physician work hour reduction has been a source of controversy within academic medicine. In 2008, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended a reduction in resident physician work hours. We sought to assess the American public perspective on this issue.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a national survey of 1,200 representative members of the public via random digit telephone dialing in order to describe US public opinion on resident physician work hour regulation, particularly with reference to the IOM recommendations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Respondents estimated that resident physicians currently work 12.9-h shifts (95% CI 12.5 to 13.3 h) and 58.3-h work weeks (95% CI 57.3 to 59.3 h). They believed the maximum shift duration should be 10.9 h (95% CI 10.6 to 11.3 h) and the maximum work week should be 50 h (95% CI 49.4 to 50.8 h), with 1% approving of shifts lasting >24 h (95% CI 0.6% to 2%). A total of 81% (95% CI 79% to 84%) believed reducing resident physician work hours would be very or somewhat effective in reducing medical errors, and 68% (95% CI 65% to 71%) favored the IOM proposal that resident physicians not work more than 16 h over an alternative IOM proposal permitting 30-h shifts with ≥5 h protected sleep time. In all, 81% believed patients should be informed if a treating resident physician had been working for >24 h and 80% (95% CI 78% to 83%) would then want a different doctor.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The American public overwhelmingly favors discontinuation of the 30-h shifts without protected sleep routinely worked by US resident physicians and strongly supports implementation of restrictions on resident physician work hours that are as strict, or stricter, than those proposed by the IOM. Strong support exists to restrict resident physicians' work to 16 or fewer consecutive hours, similar to current limits in New Zealand, the UK and the rest of Europe.</p

Recommendations on basic requirements for intensive care units: structural and organizational aspects

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance and recommendations for the planning or renovation of intensive care units (ICUs) with respect to the specific characteristics relevant to organizational and structural aspects of intensive care medicine. METHODOLOGY: The Working Group on Quality Improvement (WGQI) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) identified the basic requirements for ICUs by a comprehensive literature search and an iterative process with several rounds of consensus finding with the participation of 47 intensive care physicians from 23 countries. The starting point of this process was an ESICM recommendation published in 1997 with the need for an updated version. RESULTS: The document consists of operational guidelines and design recommendations for ICUs. In the first part it covers the definition and objectives of an ICU, functional criteria, activity criteria, and the management of equipment. The second part deals with recommendations with respect to the planning process, floorplan and connections, accommodation, fire safety, central services, and the necessary communication systems. CONCLUSION: This document provides a detailed framework for the planning or renovation of ICUs based on a multinational consensus within the ESIC