A mid year comparison study of career satisfaction and emotional states between residents and faculty at one academic medical center

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's (ACGME) new requirements raise multiple challenges for academic medical centers. We sought to evaluate career satisfaction, emotional states, positive and negative experiences, work hours and sleep among residents and faculty simultaneously in one academic medical center after implementation of the ACGME duty hour requirements. METHODS: Residents and faculty (1330) in the academic health center were asked to participate in a confidential survey; 72% of the residents and 66% of the faculty completed the survey. RESULTS: Compared to residents, faculty had higher levels of satisfaction with career choice, competence, importance and usefulness; lower levels of anxiousness and depression. The most positive experiences for both groups corresponded to strong interpersonal relationships and educational value; most negative experiences to poor interpersonal relationships and issues perceived outside of the physician's control. Approximately 13% of the residents and 14% of the faculty were out of compliance with duty hour requirements. Nearly 5% of faculty reported working more than 100 hours per week. For faculty who worked 24 hour shifts, nearly 60% were out of compliance with the duty-hour requirements. CONCLUSION: Reasons for increased satisfaction with career choice, positive emotional states and experiences for faculty compared to residents are unexplained. Earlier studies from this institution identified similar positive findings among advanced residents compared to more junior residents. Faculty are more frequently at risk for duty-hour violations. If patient safety is of prime importance, faculty, in particular, should be compliant with the duty hour requirements. Perhaps the ACGME should contain faculty work hours as part of its regulatory function

Is it pleasure or health from leisure that we benefit from most?:An analysis of well-being alternatives and implications for policy

International policy now constantly advocates a need for populations to engage in more physical activity to promote health and to reduce society’s health care costs. Such policy has developed guidelines on recommended levels and intensity of physical activity and implicitly equates health with well-being. It is assumed that individual, and hence social welfare will be enhanced if the activity guidelines are met. This paper challenges that claim and raises questions for public policy priorities. Using an instrumental variable analysis to value the well-being from active leisure, it is shown that the well-being experienced from active leisure that is not of a recommended intensity to generate health benefits, perhaps due to its social, recreational or fun purpose, has a higher value of well-being than active leisure that does meet the guidelines. This suggests rethinking the motivation and foundation of existing policy and perhaps a realignment of priorities towards activity that has a greater contribution to social welfare through its intrinsic fun and possibly social interaction