[cstross]

Here in the UK, the way I heard it from a friend who was doing their pre-med, is that there was a built-in cost incentive: hospitals paid doctors who were on-call at one third of their regular hourly rate for out-of-hours on-call coverage. (That's not regular hourly rate plus a third; that's one third of normal wages for hours after the first 40.) So the hospital administration had a solid reason to work their interns and house officers into the ground rather than hiring extra junior doctors.

The original rationale was that the "on call" hours were not supposed to be busy and the duty doctors could spend most of them sleeping in a bunk or studying: but by the late 1980s (when I heard about things) they were working more or less constantly through their shifts.

The EU Working Hours Directive was supposed to fix this by banning workers from putting in more than about 50 hours a week without very specific protections being enforced, but one of the first things the UK's Conservative government did in 2010 was to stop enforcing this.

[ineedasername]

I wonder how much of it is financially motivated in this way and how much is the inertia of this hazing-style culture. From what you've said, I'm sure hospitals would object to a change out of financial self-interest, but it seems the ingrained culture stops the issue from getting a big push to begin with.

I know labor unions (sometimes rightfully) get a bad rap, but it seems this is exactly the type of abuse they were designed to stop. There are some [0] but the rate is low, less than 15%, and there's a sort of self-censorship style of pressure against pushing harder for them.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/doctors...

[uxp100]

But Doctors have a very strong labor union, which tends to advocate FOR this system. Probably even though the AMA represents residents, doctors who have succeeded in the residency system have more sway within it.

[ineedasername]

I'm in the US. After some searching, I can't find any information about most doctors having unions. I found one that appears to mostly work with California doctors, but that was about it. Either way, I was speaking about residents, who don't have particularly strong or ubiquitous unions. Again, that's in the US. Other countries may vary.

[uxp100]

I was being tricky here but I mean the AMA.

It controls a great deal about doctor's education and working conditions. It does not collectively bargain, so it's not strictly a union. But it's more powerful than most unions at this point. So a glib, "maybe doctors should get a union to represent them" answer to poor working conditions for residents doesn't really make sense. They already have a powerful organization that should represent them.

I think that there is at least some group of physicians who really think that poor working conditions for residents improves patient outcomes and doctor training.

[ineedasername]

That is very true, the AMA is not formally a union, but it does exert a significant level of control and influence in standardizing the practices of doctors.

As for patient outcomes, I'd love to see a study of them for the roughly 15% of residents that have a union and very modest work place improvements, compared to outcomes for the rest of residents. You're right, many doctors do seem to "feel" the traditional method is superior, but I'd like to see hard data.

[uxp100]

I know I've seen some before, I think The Atlantic had an article about it in the past year.

I found this paper: http://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Position%20Papers/Commit...

It's citations have some hard data. Maybe the most interesting part for me was this:

"There exists instead a widespread belief that physicians can be trained to defy the biology of sleep and that safeguards are in place so that patients and residents are not harmed by work schedules that are unheard of in any other workplace, let alone a hospital. That belief is most evident today in the FIRST and iCOMPARE studies that set out to prove that there is no difference in patient outcomes from residents who work 16 or 30 hour shifts. The principal investigators were so convinced that no harm would come of these experiments that they determined it wasn’t necessary to obtain informed consent from either patients or residents in the hospitals where the studies were conducted. This determination has been widely disputed and is now under investigation by the Office of Human Research Protections."