Trainees' attitudes to shift work depend on grade and specialty
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7379.48 (Published 04 January 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:48All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Messer wonders whether we could ever shift back to on call systems of
working. The simple answer to this point, for many specialties, is NO!
Implementation of the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) is a non
-negotiable part of Health and Safety legislation. In fact its
implementation for junior doctors in training is later than that of other
professions.
The EWTD sets clear limits on the amount of work allowed during any
24 hour period, and also the duration of rest required between these work
periods. For many specialities these limits mean that 24 hour resident on-
call systems are rotas of the past. Such working patterns are likely to
contravene the forthcoming legislation leaving offending trusts open to
investigation and potential prosecution by the Health and Safety
Executive.
Shift based working patterns do reduce the number of doctors
available during the normal working day. However, the EWTD limits have
been available for some time now. It is up to individual trusts to look at
staffing levels and service provision to ensure that, when these
guidelines are implemented in August 2004, sufficient doctors are
available to cover the service needs of the establishment as well as
provide adequate training of the doctors employed.
In the short term this may involve increasing the number of doctors
employed. In the longer term attention should be given to re-designing
service provision in a geographical area and looking at ways trusts can
provide an acceptable service to their patients whilst still complying
with essential health and safety rulings.
Continuity of care may be reduced using shift systems in that the
same doctor is not available for a full 24 hour period to provide input
into patient management. However, a well designed shift system, with built
-in handover periods should help to aleviate some concerns of those people
who are so against the introduction of shift work.
The unpredicatability of some on-call rotas means that a doctor could
have been asleep for 15 minutes before being woken to deal with a problem
or answer a query, only to fall asleep again and have the cycle started
once more. Surely a system where doctors are awake at night and allowed to
go home in the morning is preferable to the current arrangements where
potential for sleep at night is, at best, unpredictable, and, at worst,
unavailable.
The planning of annual leave or study leave may appear to be
difficult when working a shift based system. However, if the shift pattern
is sufficiently flexible to allow changes, and has made allowances for
annual or study leave, then there will be less difficulty involved in
obtaining time off for leave purposes.
It is up to junior doctors working unfavourable shift patterns to
negotiate changes with their employing trusts and seek changes to the
working arrangements to create a system which allows maximal educational
opportunity, acceptable service provision and sufficiently flexible
working arrangements to make the implementation of the EWTD more appealing
to medical staff rather than a change which is to be resisted at all
costs. The sooner this is acknowledged, the sooner doctors can begin to
work with trusts to seek mutually more acceptable working patterns.
Shift systems are here to stay. It is now time to shift 24 hour
resident on-call systems into medical history books.
Competing interests: AR is the Junior Doctor Representative for Royal Manchester Children's Hospital and is involved in negotiation with the trust concerning changing working patterns. Opinions expressed are entriely personal.
Competing interests: No competing interests
EDITOR-I read with great interest the neat study undertaken by Aitken
and Paice. Obviously the attitude towards shift work is highly dependent
upon speciality and grade as well as obligations outside medicine.
Clearly training needs and family committments raise important objections
to shift work.
There are, however, other equally compelling arguements against the shift
system and I wonder whether the on-call system was so unworkable to
doctors and so detrimental to patient care to deem these arguements
irrelevant.
The primary flaw with the shift system is that it necessarily leaves the
ward with one, two or three fewer doctors during normal working hours (the
exact number will depend on the shift pattern and the number of doctors
working the particular rota).
Shift work therefore raises concerns regarding the staffing of wards and
outpatient clinics and continuity of care which has implications for both
the care of patients and doctors' training. It is the experience of many
consultants that clinics have had to be trimmed and that a different
junior doctor is present on each ward round with varying knowledge of the
patients he or she is about to present.
Furthermore, the intensity of the working day is increased by always
having at least one doctor fewer on duty.
Additionally, few junior doctors will not have experienced difficulties
planning and obtaining annual and study leave since the introduction of
this system.
Two issues remain to be resolved. Firstly, are there health implications
for those working a shift pattern and are they more than in those working
an on-call pattern?
Secondly and most important of all, what are the implications to patient
care of a shift system? Certainly continuity of care is reduced.
However, is a doctor thrown into a one off week of nights with little or
no time to adjust their sleep pattern so much more competent than one
woken from slumber after twenty hours at work to compensate for the
objections to shift work which make it unpalatable to so many junior
doctors?
The answer to the working hours problem is of course, more doctors, but
how best to use those doctors; giving everyone more days off on a shift
system or decreasing the frequency of on-call committments?
Answers on a postcard if your rota has allowed you a holiday!
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
EDITOR- Aitken and Paice(1) reported the expectations that trainees
have towards working shift patterns to achieve EWTD compliance. We have
surveyed the impact on surgical training after the implementation of a
partial shift system.
In May 2002, general surgery senior house officers in Cardiff and Vale NHS
Trust had their working pattern changed from a traditional on-call rota to
a partial shift system, thereby limiting their working week to 56 hours.
We evaluated the number of consultant-led clinics and the number of
elective operating lists that each trainee was able to attend in the three
month periods before and after the change. These are the two main
opportunities for surgical trainees to interact with their consultant
trainers.
We found that as a result of partial shifts, the mean number of clinics
that the trainee was able to attend fell by 52% (14.7 to 7, p=0.006).
Attendance at elective operating sessions fell by 42% (18.6 lists to 10.8,
p=0.006). When questioned, trainees expressed great dissatisfaction with
the level of training they were receiving.
This is the sad situation that the surgical trainees in Aitken and Paice’s
survey would face, should partial shifts be hurried through in south
London. They are clearly alert to this threat already; 74% of them would
be opposed to working shift patterns, primarily because of the impact on
experience (63%), and secondarily, because of impact on family life (25%).
It is noteworthy that the trainees in medicine, paediatrics, anaesthesia,
emergency medicine and obstetrics would welcome the introduction of
shifts. Junior surgeons have different training needs and requirements to
their colleagues; it is vital that we don’t end up with the same
‘package’.
The Directive is EU law and it is too late to oppose its establishment in
2004. Its introduction is untimely, with reports that UK medical training
can no longer be considered the best in the world (2), wholly as a result
of the continuing reduction in trainees’ hours. Elsewhere, nearly 60% of
consultants interviewed would be unhappy for a newly appointed Calman
consultant to operate on them (3).
EWTD has the potential to further undermine an already beleaguered
training system. It is up to us, and the professional bodies that
represent us, to decide whether we seize this as an opportunity to
overhaul medical training, or whether we simply respond to its demands,
thereby putting training after service provision.
References
1. Aitken M, Paice E. Trainees’ attitudes to shift work depend on grade
and speciality (letter). Br Med J 2003;326:48.
2. UK training ‘no longer best’. Hospital Doctor 16th Jan 2003, p.4.
3. Morris Stiff GJ, Clarke D, Torkington J, et al. Training in the Calman
era: what consultants say. Ann R Coll Surg Engl(Suppl) 2002;84:345-7.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
EDITOR:
Aitken and Paice have shown that trainees’ attitudes to shift work
depend on grade and specialty.(1) With the implementation of the European
Working Time Directive in August 2004 (2), working patterns for many
doctors in training will have to radically change. The organisation of
such changes will present a major challenge to NHS Trusts and the
Department of Health.
The European Working Time Directive will enforce stringent
requirements on doctors and employing trusts. As part of health and safety
legislation, its implementation cannot be avoided. From August 2004 there
will be a reduction in the maximum number of hours worked by doctors in
training to 58 per week; from 2009 this will be reduced further to 48.
Furthermore the directive spells out stringent rest requirements so that
continuous working is limited to no more than 13 hours in 24.
Given the SiMAP judgement of the European Court of Justice, all hours
spent on the hospital premises whilst on call will be classed as work.(3)
This will have major implications for the working patterns of doctors in
training.
Aitken and Paice(1) discussed some of the negative attitudes to shift
working patterns including a perceived disruption to social or family life
as well as concerns about training experience especially in some of the
surgical specialties. Apart from specialties in which on call commitments
are extremely low, shift-based working patterns will be an inevitable
consequence of the implementation of the EU Working Time Directive and
planning needs to take place at an early stage to deal with this reality.
The reduction in the number of hours doctors are allowed to work will
mean that either more doctors need to be recruited per trust or that tasks
normally undertaken by medically qualified staff must be redistributed to
other staff and that new healthcare practitioner roles may need to be
developed to take on this work.
Without doubt, many specialities require on-site 24 hour availability
of medical staff, however any shift-based working patterns will reduce the
availability of junior medical staff during the normal working day.
Changing working patterns within any organisation will take time and until
this is achieved the recruitment of more doctors may be the only way in
which to ensure adequate day-time cover as well as compliance with the
stringent requirements of the EU Working Time Directive.
The Department of Health and NHS Trusts have little over one year to
ensure that robust mechanisms exist to deal with the changing working
patterns of doctors in training and that these changes are approved by
Royal Colleges and Postgraduate Deans as well as the junior medical staff
involved.
The time to act is now to implement a system to deliver a high
quality, cost-effective method of patient care before the legal reality of
the EU Working Time Directive is upon us and it is too late to respond,
other than in a court of law.
1. Aikten M, Paice E. Trainees’ attitudes to shift work depend on
grade and specialty. BMJ 2003;326:48 (4 January 2003)
2. http://www.doh.gov.uk/workingtime/
3. http://www.doh.gov.uk/workingtime/simap.htm
Competing interests:
AR is the Junior Doctor Representative for Royal Manchester Children's Hospital and is involved in negotiation with the trust concerning changing working patterns. Opinions expressed are entriely personal.
Competing interests: No competing interests
House officer's personal view of shift and rota systems.
Aitkin and Paice (BMJ 2003;326:48) showed that the majority of
training doctors would like to work a 56 hour week with 13 hour shifts.
They nonetheless allude to the fact that reduction in hours and the
consequential shift systems may be detrimental to juniors training, a
concern that has been raised in the past (Kapur N et al. 1998).
This is my personal concern. As a house officer approaching the end of my
house jobs at two district general hospitals, I have experienced a job
with old style 24-hour team based on calls and a job with a partial-shift
on call that has recently needed to change to a full-shift system to
comply. My preference is overwhelmingly with the former. The benefits of
staying on call throughout, and following patients from presentation in
hospital all the way through to final outcome is a thorough education and
continuity in patient care. The converse is my experience with the shift
systems. The house officer, who clerked the patient in, is unlikely to
present the patient to the consultant the next morning, let alone follow
them through. This loss of continuity, in my opinion, results in stunted
education and, more importantly, interruption in patient care.
My fear is that by sending us to bed early, my predecessors and the
government, however well meaning, have in fact shot themselves and me the
foot. I believe that I should be in the hospital now, learning as a
protected house officer, not sent home early whilst registrars and SHOs
cover. The real danger is of breeding doctors who will not be nearly as
experienced as they climb the professional ladder. This will obviously
affect the health service.
Paice (1998) suggested that acquisition of experience had more to do with
organisation and supervision rather than long hours. Salter (1995) suggest
that making a post analogous to “Chief Resident” found in US residency
programmes, better support systems and earlier starts to the working day
may help with the need to reduce juniors’ hours. These are very valid, and
whatever is implemented, my experience does not lend me to favour just a
shift system.
My final concern is that one day I shall be on call in hospitals when I am
a grey man with more personal responsibilities, covering for juniors who,
like me now, must be sent to bed. Do others feel the same?
Aman Chandra MBBS BSc
Pre-registered house officer
References
• Aikten M, Paice E. (2003). Trainees’ attitudes to shift work depend
on grade and specialty. BMJ 2003;326:48
• Kapur N., House A. (1998). Working patterns and the quality of training
of medical house officers: evaluating the effect of the ‘new deal’. Med
Educ. 32 (4):432-8
• Paice E. (1998). Is the new deal compatible with good training? A survey
of senior house officers. Hosp Med. 59 (1): 72-4
• Salter R. (1995). The US residency programme- lessons for pre-
registration house officer education in the UK?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests