New Study Concludes Limits on Resident Work Hours Had No Negative Impact on Quality Metrics for Internal Medicine

09 August 2019 Health Care Law Today Blog
Author(s): Kristin Oto Jenkins Emily K. Weber

This Alert is brought to you by AHLA’s Academic Medical Centers and Teaching Hospitals Practice Group.

The implementation of the 2003 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) regulations on physician resident work hours led many to speculate whether the limitation on such work hours would allow physicians adequate time to gain the necessary training to practice independently without compromising quality. Although some studies have examined the effect of work hour reforms on the quality of care provided by resident physicians while in training, a recent study led by Anupam B. Jena uniquely addresses the impact of the reforms on post-training physician performance. In their study released in July in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Jena, et al., examined the impact on key quality metrics of the medical residency work hour reforms implemented by the ACGME.


While the clinical education and hands-on training of medical residencies is vital to preparing physicians for independent practice, research has documented the inextricable connection between fatigue and clinical performance. In response to the growing body of research, the ACGME implemented resident work hour reforms in 2003, including limiting work hours for all residents to an 80-hour weekly maximum with shifts of no more than 24 hours, limiting in-hospital call to every third night, and one day off in seven, averaged over four weeks. Prior to these changes, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reported that resident physicians “routinely worked 90-100 hours per week, for up to 36 consecutive hours without rest, for the entire duration of residency training.”1 Since 2003, ACGME has implemented additional work hour reforms, but the cornerstone requirements described above have remained the same.

The Study

In their study, Jena et al. sought to examine whether there are differences in 30-day mortality, 30-day readmissions, and inpatient spending between physicians who underwent residency training after the implementation of ACGME’s work hour reforms and physicians who completed their residency training prior to implementation. The researchers concluded that the marginal reduction in residency work hours did not lead to higher inpatient costs of care or worse outcomes in post-residency physician care with respect to patient mortality, readmissions, or costs of care. In other words, limiting medical training work hours had no statistically significant effect on the competency of those physicians—physicians can provide the same quality of care for the same price. The study was based on comparing the records of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older treated by physicians in their first year of independent practice and those treated by 10th-year physicians who completed their residency training prior to the work hour reforms in 2003.


This study provides further insight into the long-term impact of training reforms. It could also form the basis for future training reforms and studies. The researchers note several questions that remain, including whether the effect of the reduction in total residency work hours was “offset by greater consolidation of clinical knowledge mediated by reductions in resident fatigue and increased teaching by residency programs.” Additionally, the researchers note that the increased use of advanced practitioners, integration of multidisciplinary teams, implementation of electronic health systems, and inpatient pharmacists may have accounted for improved outcomes and lowered costs among first year physicians but not among older physicians, which would bias the findings. A number of physicians, especially those whose residencies occurred prior to the 2003 ACGME hours change, continue to argue that the decrease in clinical residency hours also has led to a decrease in soundness under pressure. That noted, as the researchers observed, future reforms and discussions on this topic should recognize that the impact of individual physicians in delivering care is increasingly mitigated by the incorporation of teams and technological advances in how medical care is delivered.

Copyright 2019, American Health Lawyers Association, Washington, DC. Reprint permission granted.

1 AHRQ, Duty Hours and Patient Safety.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services