Different views about work-hour limitations in medicine: a qualitative content analysis of surgeons', lawyers', and pilots' positive and negative arguments.

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.

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.

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<0.001). The latter agreed more with work-hour limitations in general than in medicine (p<0.001). The most often cited arguments in favour of work-hour limitations were "quality and patient safety," "health and fitness," and "leisure and work-family balance," whereas the lack of "flexibility" was the most important argument against. Surgeons expected more often that their "education" and the "quality of their work" would be threatened (p<0.001).

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.