Skip to main content
  • 558 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, we will explore a case involving a resident physician who, upon arriving at her new residency, discovers that she is enrolled in a multicenter, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of resident work-hour restrictions on patient outcomes. By the conclusion of the case, learners will be able to apply study design and basic research principles to a complex question, articulate why failure to perform research that produces valid and reliable results is as much an ethical problem as a scientific one, analyze a research study that poses ethical issues, and recognize some of the obligations and barriers to “speaking up” in the health professions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lerner B. A case that shook medicine. Washington Post [Internet]; 2006 Nov 24 [cited 2018 Feb 5]. Available from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400985.html.

  2. Blum AB, Raiszadeh F, Shea S, Mermin D, Lurie P, Landrigan CP, et al. US public opinion regarding proposed limits on resident physician work hours. BMC Med. 2010;8:33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and protection of human subjects in clinical trials [Internet]. Silver Spring (MD): FDA; updated 2015 Feb 3 [cited 2018 Feb 5]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm164171.htm.

  4. University of California, San Diego. Human research protections program: exemption from IRB Review. La Jolla (CA): UCSD; 2018 Mar 1 [cited 2018 Feb 1]. Available from: https://irb.ucsd.edu/Exemption_fact_sheet.pdf.

  5. Pucher PH, Johnston MJ, Aggarwal R, Arora S, Darzi A. Effectiveness of interventions to improve patient handover in surgery: a systematic review. Surgery. 2015;158(1):85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lin H, Lin E, Auditore S, Fanning J. A narrative review of high-quality literature on the effects of resident duty hours reforms. Acad Med. 2016;91(1):140–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rosenbaum L, Lamas D. Residents' duty hours—toward an empirical narrative. New Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):2044–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. public health service syphilis study at Tuskegee [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): CDC; 2015 [cited 2018 Feb 5]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm.

  9. DuBois JM, Bioethics Research Center. Hepatitis studies at the Willowbrook State School for Children [Internet]. Washington University in St. Louis, School of Medicine. [cited 2018 Feb 5]. Available from: https://bioethicsresearch.org/resources/case-studies/hepatitis-studies-willowbrook/.

  10. Cassel C, Dickersin K, Garber A, Gatsonis C, Gottlieb G, Guest J, et al. What is comparative effectiveness research? [Chapter 2]. In: Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2009 [cited 2018 Feb 5]. Available from: https://www.nap.edu/read/12648/chapter/4.

  11. Roland M, Torgerson DJ. Understanding controlled trials: What are pragmatic trials? BMJ. 1998;316(7127):285.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lantos JD, Wendler D, Septimus E, Wahba S, Madigan R, Bliss G. Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12(5):485–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Minami CA, Odell DD, Bilimoria KY. Ethical considerations in the development of the Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees trial. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(1):7–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ellis GB, Lin MH, Office for Protection from Research Risks. Informed consent requirements in emergency research [OPRR Letter, no. 97-01]. Rockville (MD): OHRP; 1996 Oct 31 [cited 2018 Feb 5]. Available from: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/emergency-research-informed-consent-requirements/index.html.

  15. Protection of human subjects, 45 C.F.R. § 46. Rockville: Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP).; last reviewed 2016 Feb 16 [cited 2018 Feb 5]. Available from: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html.

  16. Klass P. Getting through the night. New Engl J Med. 2013;369(24):2279–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Williamson AM, Feyer A-M. Moderate sleep deprivation produces impairments in cognitive and motor performance equivalent to legally prescribed levels of alcohol intoxication. Occup Environ Med. 2000;57:649–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Landrigan CP, Rothschild JM, Cronin JW, Kaushal R, Burdick E, Katz JT, et al. Effect of reducing interns’ work hours on serious medical errors in intensive care units. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1838–48.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bolster L, Rourke L. The effect of restricting residents’ duty hours on patient safety, resident well-being, and resident education: an updated systematic review. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7(3):349–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Govindarajan A, Urbach DR, Kumar M, Li Q, Murray BJ, Juurlink D, Kennedy E, et al. Outcomes of daytime procedures performed by attending surgeons after night work. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:845–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tsafrir Z, Korianski J, Almog B, Many A, Wiesel O, Levin I. Effects of fatigue on residents' performance in laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221(2):564–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Improving physician well-being, restoring meaning in medicine [Internet]. Chicago (IL): ACGME. [cited 2018 Feb 5]. Available from: https://www.acgme.org/What-We-Do/Initiatives/Physician-Well-Being.

  23. Liaison Committee on Medical Education. Functions and structure of a medical school: Standard 3.6. LCME; 2015 Apr [cited 2018 Feb 5]. Available from: http://jabsom.hawaii.edu/docs/LCME/standards/standard3.pdf.

  24. Ioannidis JP. Why most clinical research is not useful. PLoS Med. 2016;13(6):e1002049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bilimoria KY, Chung JW, Hedges LV, Dahlke AR, Love R, Cohen ME, et al. National cluster-randomized trial of duty-hour flexibility in surgical training. New Engl J Med. 2016;374:713–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Asch DA, Bilimoria KY, Desai SV. Resident duty hours and medical education policy—raising the evidence bar. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(18):1704–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Khoong EC, Linker AS. An appeal for evidence-based resident duty Hours Reform. JAMA Int Med. 2017;177(11):1555–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bernstein L. Some new doctors are working 30-hour shifts at hospitals around the U.S Washington Post [Internet]. 2015 Oct 28 [cited 2018 Feb 5]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/some-new-doctors-are-working-30-hour-shifts-at-hospitals-around-the-us/2015/10/28/ab7e8948-7b83-11e5-beba-927fd8634498_story.html?utm_term=.01e39d5b46d7.

Further Reading on This Topic

  • Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative. Basic course in human subjects research [Internet]. Fort Lauderdale (FL): CITI Program. Available from: https://about.citiprogram.org/en/homepage/.

  • Ofri D. Singular intimacies: becoming a doctor at Bellevue. Boston (MA): Beacon Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman DJ. Strangers at the bedside: a history of how law and bioethics transformed medical decision making. New York: Routledge; 2017.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This case was adapted from an earlier case written by Amy Caruso Brown and was inspired by the FIRST and iCOMPARE trials cited in this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory L. Eastwood .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Eastwood, G.L. (2019). “Wait, I’m a Research Subject?”. In: Caruso Brown, A., Hobart, T., Morrow, C. (eds) Bioethics, Public Health, and the Social Sciences for the Medical Professions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03544-0_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03544-0_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03543-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03544-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics