Recovery of Sleep or Recovery of Self? A Grounded Theory Study of Residents’ Decision Making Regarding How to Spend Their Nonclinical Postcall Time

Purpose: As resident work hours policies evolve, residents’ off-duty time remains poorly understood. Despite assumptions about how residents should be using their postcall, off-duty time, there is little research on how residents actually use this time and the reasoning underpinning their activities. This study sought to understand residents’ nonclinical postcall activities when they leave the hospital, their decision-making processes, and their perspectives on the relationship between these activities and their well-being or recovery.

Method: The study took place at a Liaison Committee on Medical Education–accredited Canadian medical school from 2012 to 2014. The authors recruited a purposive and convenience sample of postgraduate year 1–5 residents from six surgical and nonsurgical specialties at three hospitals affiliated with the medical school. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, semistructured interviews were conducted, audio-taped, transcribed, anonymized, and combined with field notes. The authors analyzed interview transcripts using constant comparative analysis and performed post hoc member checking.

Results: Twenty-four residents participated. Residents characterized their predominant approach to postcall decision making as one of making trade-offs between multiple, competing, seemingly incompatible, but equally valuable, activities. Participants exhibited two different trade-off orientations: being oriented toward maintaining a normal life or toward mitigating fatigue.

Conclusions: The authors’ findings on residents’ trade-off orientations suggest a dual recovery model with postcall trade-offs motivated by the recovery of sleep or of self. This model challenges the dominant viewpoint in the current duty hours literature and suggests that the duty hours discussion must be broadened to include other recovery processes.

“There’s a Catch-22”. The complexities of pain management for people with advanced dementia nearing the end of life: a qualitative exploration of physicians’ perspectives

Background: Pain management is a cornerstone of palliative care. The clinical issues encountered by physicians when managing pain in patients dying with advanced dementia, and how these may impact on prescribing and treatment, are unknown. Aim: To explore physicians’ experiences of pain management for patients nearing the end of life, the impact of these on prescribing and treatment approaches, and the methods employed to overcome these challenges. Design: Qualitative, semi-structured interview study exploring: barriers to and facilitators of pain management, prescribing and treatment decisions, and training needs. Thematic analysis was used to elicit key themes. Settings/Participants: Twenty-three physicians, responsible for treating patients with advanced dementia approaching the end of life, were recruited from primary care (n=9), psychiatry (n=7) and hospice care (n=7). Results: Six themes emerged: diagnosing pain, complex prescribing and treatment approaches, side-effects and adverse events, route of administration, importance of sharing knowledge and training needs. Knowledge exchange was often practised through liaison with physicians from other specialties. Cross-specialty mentoring, and the creation of knowledge networks were believed to improve pain management in this patient population. Conclusions: Pain management in end-stage dementia is complex, requiring cross-population of knowledge between palliative care specialists and non-specialists, in addition to collateral information provided by other health professionals and patients’ families. Regular, cost- and time-effective mentoring and ongoing professional development are perceived to be essential in empowering physicians to meet clinical challenges in this area.