科研之友
微信
新浪微博
Facebook
分享链接
摘要
Background: Whereas work-hour regulations have been taken for granted since 1940 in other occupational settings, such as commercial aviation, they have been implemented only recently in medical professions, where they lead to a lively debate. The aim of the present study was to evaluate arguments in favour of and against work-hour limitations in medicine given by Swiss surgeons, lawyers, and pilots. %26lt;br%26gt;Methods: An electronic questionnaire survey with four free-response items addressing the question of what arguments speak in favour of or against work-hour limitations in general and in medicine was sent to a random sample of board-certified surgeons, lawyers in labour law, and pilots from SWISS International Airlines Ltd. %26lt;br%26gt;Results: In all, 279/497 (56%) of the respondents answered the survey: 67/117 surgeons, 92/226 lawyers, and 120/154 pilots. Support for work-hour limitations in general and in medicine was present and higher among lawyers and pilots than it was in surgeons (p%26lt;0.001). The latter agreed more with work-hour limitations in general than in medicine (p%26lt;0.001). The most often cited arguments in favour of work-hour limitations were %26quot;quality and patient safety,%26quot; %26quot;health and fitness,%26quot; and %26quot;leisure and work-family balance,%26quot; whereas the lack of %26quot;flexibility%26quot; was the most important argument against. Surgeons expected more often that their %26quot;education%26quot; and the %26quot;quality of their work%26quot; would be threatened (p%26lt;0.001). %26lt;br%26gt;Conclusions: Work-hour limitations should be supported in medicine also, but a way must be found to reduce problems resulting from discontinuity in patient care and to minimise the work in medicine, which has no education value.
- 出版日期2014-11-24
