Work hours limits in Sweden Its complicated

A physician in training from Sweden emailed me some questions, and the topic of work hours came up. To protect his identity, I have slightly altered a some of his responses, but I have not altered his message.

It´s quite interesting as physician work hours, or rather productivity, are debated a lot in Sweden right now.

The work hour restriction [50 hours/week in Sweden] is not enforced at all. This summer I was working as a junior house officer in a surgical specialty at a county hospital, and I can´t say I noticed anyone trying to cap my work hours, on my first day I was encouraged to work as much as I could.

On the other hand I was not put on the on call schedule, as that involved covering the ED (outside of academia EM-physicians are scarce) and all surgical services. It is hard to get to work 50 hours a week covering only a 12-bed service, when the nurses do all the blood tests (except blood gases), urinary catheters, do all patient transporting, and such. I did get some OR time though.

I think there is no enforcement of the 50 hours/week restriction because doctors here don´t get paid as fee-for-service. There is zero difference if you do 5 or 10 cases during your shift. There is no incentive to work more than 50 hours/week, and doctors don´t.

A problem that is more particular for surgery is the limited capacity of operating theaters, in many hospitals productivity is low, case turnover time is long, and you can only do elective cases between 8:30-16:00 (and God forbid you operate past 16:00). In the hospital I worked, we were not allowed to start elective cases after 14:30, and we only had 2.5 days/week when we could operate.

If you want to make money, you take a leave, go to Norway, work 80-100 hours/week in some rural hospital there for a few months, and earn three times as much. [I was also told about this by some Swedish surgical residents I met while attending a conference there last year.]

We do a lot of administration. A study published in a Swedish medical journal, in Swedish sadly, found that Swedish surgical residents spend 40% of their time on administration and 40% of their time taking care of patients. Their British counterparts did 15% admin and 66% patient care. An average work day was 8.2 hours in Sweden and 12.2 hours in England.

Because of this, few physician hours are "productive" and Swedish doctors see very few patients compared to most Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Queues build up and the hospitals don´t want that. So I guess they want us to work.

There was however a government crackdown on a rural hospital in northern Sweden where the county (which is the governmental body running hospitals in Sweden) was fined for imposing too long work hours. So there may be change, but rural northern hospitals are not in an ideal position to recruit more doctors.

Right now work hours are restricted formally but in practice it is hard to get that amount of meaningful work done. It has some perks however, as residents can pick up their children from day care. [Emphasis added]

Is this where we are heading in the United States?

Read More..

Is student test performance impaired by distracting electronic devices

After listening to a lecture, third-year students at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine were surveyed about distractions by electronic devices and given a 12-question quiz. Although 65% of the students admitted to having been distracted by emails, Facebook, and/or texting during the lecture, distracted students had an average score of 9.85 correct compared to 10.444 students who said they werent distracted. The difference was not significant, p = 0.652.

In their conclusion they authors said, "Those who were distracted during the lecture performed similarly in the post-lecture test to the non-distracted group."

The full text of the paper is available online. As an exercise, you may want to take a look at the paper and critique it yourself before reading my review. It will only take you a few minutes.

As you consider any research paper, you should ask yourself a number of questions such as are the journal and authors credible, were the methods appropriate, were there enough subjects, were the conclusions supported by the data, and do I believe the study?

Of course, many more questions could be included. Google "how to critique an article," and you will find numerous lengthy treatises on the subject.

The paper appears in PeerJ, a fairly new open access journal with a different format. Authors have to pay to have papers published, but they can opt for a reasonably priced plan for lifetime memberships with variable numbers of papers included.

It’s too new to have an impact factor but stats on the website state that the paper has had over 2,700 views and been downloaded 76 times.

The authors are from Harvard so they must be credible.

The study is described as quasi-experimental, meaning not randomized. That is not necessarily bad especially because it is said to be a pilot study too.

The main problem with the paper is that it was underpowered to detect a difference because there were only 26 subjects, 17 distracted and 9 not. The null hypothesis—that distractions do not affect test scores—was accepted as true, which is called a "Type II" error by statisticians.

Other issues with the paper are that distracting behaviors may have been underreported by the students, the test questions may have been too easy, and the two groups may have differed in their baseline knowledge of the material. Harvard dental students may not be representative of students or people in general. A couple of my colleagues on Twitter suggested that the lecture could have been either so good, or so bad, that paying total attention was unnecessary. PeerJ has a 70% acceptance rate for submissions.

Did I mention that one of the two authors of the paper is an "Academic Editor" for the journal?

Bottom line: This paper should not convince you that distractions by electronic devices are not harmful to learners.

Read More..

Which is better—an electronic or a paper progress note

It depends on whom you ask.

A new study says internal medicine house staff generally feel that the quality of progress notes is unchanged or better since the implementation of an electronic medical record, but the attendings feel that progress note quality is unchanged or worse.

Over 400 interns, residents, and attending internists at four university hospitals were surveyed. The paper appears online in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

Specifically, 50% of residents felt that the quality of notes was unchanged and 39% thought the quality was better or much better. Conversely, 39% of the attendings felt the note quality was unchanged, and another 39% felt that it was worse or much worse.

From the paper: Half of interns and residents rated their own progress notes as “very good” or “excellent.” A total of 44% percent of interns and 24% of residents rated their peers’ notes as “very good” or “excellent,” whereas only 15% of attending physicians rated housestaff notes as “very good” or “excellent.”

When the 9-item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument was used to evaluate notes, attending perceptions of housestaff notes were significantly lower than housestaff perceptions of their own notes, p < 0.001. One of the PDQI items asked for a rating of how succinct resident notes were. That feature was rated lowest by attendings and residents alike. I can think of a lot of words to describe electronic progress notes, but "succinct" isnt one of them.

In all, 16% of interns, 22% of residents, and 55% of attendings reported that copy forward [copy and paste] had a “somewhat negative” or “very negative” impact on critical thinking, p < 0.001. Auto population of fields in notes was judged similarly.

The authors felt that these differences could be explained because Attendings may expect notes to reflect synthesis and analysis, whereas trainees may be satisfied with the data gathering that an EHR facilitates. I agree.

Can all this be remedied?

Dr. Daniel Sexton, a Duke University internist, authored a three page guide [link is safe] on how to write effective progress notes. Here are just a few excerpts:

DO NOT TRANSCRIBE LAB DATA INTO THE PROGRESS NOTES UNLESS YOU INTEND TO COMMENT UPON IT. [All caps by Dr. Sexton]

It is often good and useful to explain your thinking in the chart.

Do not mindlessly repeat yourself in daily notes. [That goes for "copy and paste" too (my extension of this recommendation)]

LENGTH OF NOTES DOES NOT RELATE TO RELEVANCE OF NOTES. [All caps by Dr. Sexton]

I have written about the pitfalls of electronic medical records several times. In my blogs search field to your upper right, insert "electronic medical record" or "EMR" and click "Search This Blog" to see my other posts.

Its early in the academic year. Start writing better notes now. And please dont copy and paste.

Read More..