0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Academia and the Profession |

A Phenomenology of Scut

Robert S. A. Hayward, MD; Rockwood Kenneth, MD, MPA; Gerry J. Sheehan, MB; and Eric B. Bass, MD, MPH
[+] Article and Author Information

Grant Support: In part by the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research.

Requests for Reprints: Robert S.A. Hayward, MD, Division of Internal Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Room 8042, 1830 East Monument Street, Baltimore, MD 21205.

Current Author Addresses: Drs. Hayward and Bass: Division of Internal Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1830 East Monument Street, Baltimore, MD 21205.

Dr. Rockwood: Division of Geriatric Medicine, Camp Hill Medical Centre, 1763 Robie Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 3G2.

Dr. Sheehan: Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, 2F1 Walter C. Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2J7.


© 1991 American College of PhysiciansAmerican College of Physicians


Ann Intern Med. 1991;115(5):372-376. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-115-5-372
Text Size: A A A

Objective: To identify, describe, and quantify the night-call duties that residents in internal medicine call "scutwork" and to compare faculty and residents' perceptions of scutwork.

Design: Prospective, cross-sectional study.

Setting: General internal medicine training program at a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital.

Participants: Forty-eight residents who spent 3 months or more on an internal medicine teaching unit during the previous year and 41 faculty members who spent 2 months or more on one of these units.

Interventions: Postcall surveys and night-call diaries were used to analyze residents' activities, to derive a definition of scutwork, and to estimate its prevalence. Residents and faculty then completed a detailed questionnaire that included ratings of the educational value, "scut content," and residents' responsibility for 20 specific tasks.

Main Results: Eighty-three percent of residents found scutwork and education to be mutually exclusive for the 20 tasks, although 20% indicated that scutwork was an appropriate task for residents. Residents' ratings of tasks as scut varied according to the context of the task. For example, obtaining routine consent from someone else's patient was considered scutwork by 98% of residents, whereas obtaining such consent from the resident's own patient was rated as scutwork by only 52% (P < 0.01). Similarly, performing intravenous cannulation at the request of ward staff was rated as scut by 94% of residents, whereas performing cannulation at another resident's request was rated as scut by 56% (P < 0.01). Night-time admission of a patient for an elective procedure was rated as scut by 75% of residents, whereas admission of such a patient after discussion with a faculty member was labeled scut by only 44% (P < 0.01). Faculty ratings of such admissions did not show the same variation (24% for both). Faculty were more likely than residents to assess tasks as educational (50% compared with 26%, P < 0.01) but were less likely to consider tasks as scutwork (47% compared with 62%, P = 0.12) or as work that should be done by nonresidents (35% compared with 46%, P > 0.2).

Conclusions: Our results suggest that the characteristics of scutwork can be identified, that the perception of scut varies between faculty and residents, and that the context of a task often determines whether residents perceive it as scut.

Figures

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)