June, 23 2010, 01:33pm EDT

Patient Safety Advocates Give Plan to Reform Medical Residency a Failing Grade
Accreditation Group’s Proposal on Resident Physician Work Hours Do Not Measure Up to Institute of Medicine Recommendations
WASHINGTON
The coalition of public interest and patient safety groups that have
spearheaded the www.WakeUpDoctor.org
campaign issued a "report card" in response to today's proposal by the
Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to
restructure medical residency programs, published in The New England
Journal of Medicine.
Since February, the Wake Up Doctor campaign has been instrumental in
raising awareness about the dangers posed by medical residents working
shifts as long as 30 hours, frequently with limited support or
supervision, leaving them exhausted and prone to mistakes. The
coalition, which includes Public Citizen, Mothers Against Medical Error
and other patient advocates, based their grades on the landmark 2008
report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), Resident Duty Hours:
Enhancing Sleep, Supervision and Safety. The IOM report made a thorough
review of issues related to residency and listed 10 recommendations for
change, including an increase in supervision of junior residents and a
significant reduction in work hours.
Although ACGME, the group responsible for training physicians in the
United States, demonstrated some progress in reconciling its regulations
with the mounting body of scientific evidence linking acute and chronic
sleep deprivation with preventable medical errors, the coalition judged
that the proposal fails compared to the more comprehensive
recommendations of the IOM report.
*
Common Sense Limits on Resident Duty Hours
Grade: F
The IOM report called for a reduction in resident duty hours from 30
consecutive-hour shifts to continuous shifts lasting no longer than 16
hours. The ACGME's proposal implements that change only for medical
residents in their first year (interns). This change would therefore
only apply to 22 percent of total residents in hospitals throughout the
country. Most medical residents could continue to be scheduled for a
maximum of 24 consecutive hours, a duration rejected by the IOM in late
2008. Ample evidence has shown that marathon shifts in excess of 16
hours can have a detrimental effect on a physician's abilities and
judgment.
Additionally, the IOM made a number of recommendations ranging from
the minimum time off between scheduled duty periods, the maximum number
of consecutive nights a resident may work night duty, adjustments to the
minimum amount of time off per week, and an immediate, urgent
requirement for hospitals to provide safe transportation home for
fatigued residents. Nearly all of these recommendations are left out of
the ACGME's proposal.
"Although it's a positive step for the ACGME to make any
acknowledgement of the evidence linking resident fatigue and medical
error, its proposed solution misses the mark," said Dr. Alex Blum, one
of the authors of the recent study, "US Public Opinion Regarding
Proposed Limits on Resident Physician Work Hours," which was published
in BMC Medicine. "Physicians do not cease to be human beings when they
complete their first year of residency, nor does an additional year of
training make them impervious to the physiological effects of sleep
deprivation. Patients both deserve and expect to be treated by a
well-rested physician. The ACGME's proposal on work hours won't come
close to making that a reality."
Adequate Direct, Onsite Supervision
Grade: B
The IOM report called for first-year residents not to be "on duty
without having immediate access to a residency program-approved
supervisory physician in-house" (Summary, p.13). The ACGME adopts this
measure, but only somewhat vaguely addresses the IOM report's
recommendation for measurable standards of supervision for each level of
residency.
"The ACGME has taken an important step in regard to supervision of
first-year residents and to setting specific standards for different
levels of supervision," said Helen Haskell, founder and president of
Mothers Against Medical Error. "I think the acid test will be in the
details. We need to be sure that residents of all levels have sufficient
backup and reasonable limits on their workloads."
Structured, Institutionalized Handover Processes
Grade: C
The IOM report called for medical residents to be trained to
communicate clearly and accurately when handing over patients after
residents' shifts end, a process known as "handovers" or "signouts." The
ACGME proposal includes this provision, as well as requiring a system
to quickly and accurately communicate to staff and patients the roles
and patient responsibilities of both residents and attending physicians
at any given time.
However, the IOM report also called for dedicated, protected and
overlapping time for patient care teams to conduct these transitions.
The ACGME proposal does not include this solution to reduce errors
related to handovers and improve team communication among providers.
"Without question, the environment in which handovers take place must
be closely monitored to prevent errors and potential harm for our
patients," said Dr. Farbod Raiszadeh, president of the Committee of
Interns and Residents/SEIU Healthcare, the nation's largest union for
housestaff. "However, I can say from experience that part of that
environment is how long the outgoing resident has been working in the
hospital and how fatigued they are at the time of transition. Handovers
are safer, more thorough and less prone to error when they occur in hour
16 than in hour 30 of a shift."
Increased Oversight of Residency Programs
Grade: F
Although the ACGME plans to dramatically increase the number of site
visits, its oversight proposal falls far short of the IOM's standard.
The IOM report called for rigorous oversight on the part of the ACGME,
including unannounced visits to teaching hospitals, strengthened
complaint procedures and confidential, protected reporting of hours by
residents and teaching hospitals - none of which is directly addressed
by the ACGME's proposal. Additionally, the IOM report called for
independent monitoring by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
and the Joint Commission - a recommendation that is also absent from
the ACGME proposal, thus leaving the major control in the hands of the
non-governmental ACGME instead of increasing the role of the government
in oversight.
"The improvements in the new ACGME guidelines are largely swamped by
the failure to cover the majority of medical residents with the
protection of not having to work more than 16 hours continuously," said
Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group.
"This is the second revision of ACGME requirements in the last seven
years and the organization still does not get it right."
*
The coalition will continue to educate the public concerning the
areas where the ACGME proposal fails to meet the standards set by the
2008 IOM report.
To learn more about the issue of resident work hours, supervision and
safety, and to sign the campaign's letter to the ACGME in support of
the IOM recommendations, visit www.WakeUpDoctor.org.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Trump Plan Would Force Tourists to Share Years of Social Media Posts Before Entering US
One critic predicted the policy would "exacerbate civil liberties harms" if enacted.
Dec 10, 2025
Visiting the US as a tourist could soon become significantly more onerous under a new plan being mulled by the Trump administration.
According to a Tuesday report in the New York Times, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) this week filed a new proposal that would force visitors to submit up to five years' worth of social media posts for inspection before being allowed to enter the country.
In addition to social media history, CPB says it plans to ask prospective tourists to provide them with email addresses they've used over the last decade, as well as "the names, birth dates, places of residence, and birthplaces of parents, spouses, siblings, and children."
The policy would apply even to citizens of countries that have long been US allies, including the UK, Germany, Australia, and Japan, which have long been exempt from visa requirements.
Sophia Cope, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told the Times that the CBP policy would "exacerbate civil liberties harms."
Cope added that such policies have "not proven effective at finding terrorists and other bad guys" but have instead "chilled the free speech and invaded the privacy of innocent travelers, along with that of their American family, friends and colleagues."
Journalist Bethany Allen, head of China investigations at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, expressed shock that the US would take such drastic measures to scrutinize the social media posts of tourists.
"Wow," she wrote in a post on X, "even China doesn't do this."
In addition to concerns about civil liberties violations, there are also worries about what the new policy would do to the US tourism industry.
The Times noted in its report that several tourism-dependent businesses last month signed a letter opposing an administration proposal to collect a $250 "visa integrity fee," and one travel industry official told the paper that the CBP's new proposal appears to be "a significant escalation in traveler vetting."
The American tourism industry has already taken a blow during President Donald Trump's second term, even without a policy of forcing tourists to share their social media history.
A report released on Wednesday from Democrats on the Senate's Joint Economic Committee (JEC) found that US businesses that have long depended on tourism from Canada to stay afloat have been getting hit hard, as Canadian tourists stay away in protest of Trump's trade war against their country.
Overall, the report found that "the number of passenger vehicles crossing the US-Canada border declined by nearly 20% compared to the same time period in 2024, with some states seeing declines as large as 27%."
Elizabeth Guerin, owner of New Hampshire-based gift shop Fiddleheads, told the JEC that Canadians used to make up to a quarter of her custom base, but now "I can probably count the number of Canadian visitors on one hand."
Christa Bowdish, owner of the Vermont-based Old Stagecoach Inn, told the JEC that she feared a long-term loss in Canadian customers, even if Trump ended his feud with the nation tomorrow.
"This is long-lasting damage to a relationship and emotional damage takes time to heal," she said. "While people aren’t visiting Vermont, they’ll be finding new places to visit, making new memories, building new family traditions, and we will not recapture all of that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lemkin Institute Rebukes Clinton for Blaming Youth Outrage Over Gaza Genocide on TikTok
"Young people in the US are not stupid or gullible. They simply reject genocide—something the secretary might consider."
Dec 10, 2025
The world's leading genocide prevention group this week accused former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of "outright genocide denial" for comments last week attributing young Americans' opposition to Israel's US-backed genocide in Gaza on social media.
Speaking last week at the Israel Hayom Summit in New York, Clinton asserted that young people's support for Palestine stems from the fact that they are "getting their information from social media, particularly TikTok," adding that many younger Jewish Americans “don’t know the history and don’t understand" the Israel-Palestine issue.
On Monday, the Philadelphia-based Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security—named for Raphael Lemkin, a lawyer and Holocaust survivor who coined the term genocide—published a statement arguing that "Secretary Clinton’s framing is not at all an accurate reflection of why Americans are growing more critical of Israel."
"Young Americans of all political stripes have not fallen prey to propaganda, though that is always a legitimate concern," the institute said. "Rather, they have consumed two years of videos depicting Israel’s genocide against Palestinians that have been uploaded by Palestinian journalists, ordinary people trying to survive in Gaza, [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers, and ordinary Israelis themselves."
"There has been no convincing refutation of the sheer amount of raw evidence of genocide coming out of Palestine," the institute contended. "Young people in the US are not stupid or gullible. They simply reject genocide—something the secretary might consider doing as well."
Wow: Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention (named for Holocaust survivor Raphael Lemkin, who coined term "genocide") calls Clinton's remarks "genocide denial.""Young people in the US are not stupid or gullible. They simply reject genocide – something the Secretary might consider doing as well."
[image or embed]
— Prem Thakker ツ (@premthakker.bsky.social) December 9, 2025 at 11:15 AM
LIGP continued:
Secretary Clinton appears not to be bothered by the reality of genocidal violence—in fact, she did not mention anything about it. Her concern is, rather, in her words, “the narrative”—the fact that these crimes are no longer hidden and are now being livestreamed and documented in real time, making it harder for her and others to control it. TikTok cannot be blamed for the fact that many members of Gen Z understand that Israel is committing genocide, since so many other people, including those who never look at TikTok, also hold that view. Apart from the Lemkin Institute, the vast majority of large, mainstream human rights organizations, the [United Nations], and many scholars as well as international legal bodies have denounced Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide. Many carefully researched reports by international organizations have established that Israel’s crimes meet the international legal threshold for genocide. We encourage the former secretary to read them.
"The Lemkin Institute continues to support students and young people worldwide for having the courage to stand up for their convictions, to speak truth to power, and to fight against the scourge of genocide in Palestine and elsewhere," LIGP added. "Secretary Clinton’s remarks are not only inaccurate—they are also a shameful example of the lengths to which people complicit in genocide will go to to deny its existence."
The institute's rebuke of Clinton's comments came as the International Court of Justice in The Hague adjudicates a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa and supported by around two dozen nations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant—who ordered the "complete siege" of Gaza that fueled famine and disease—are also wanted by the International Criminal Court, also located in the The Hague, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity including murder and forced starvation.
Lemkin's denunciation also comes amid a tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, a truce Israeli forces have broken more than 500 times, according to officials in the Palestinian exclave. Israeli officials say Palestinian resistance fighters have violated the ceasefire more than 30 times.
Since the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, Israel's annihilation and siege of Gaza have left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened. Israeli military data suggests that of the the more than 70,000 Palestinian deaths, over 8 in 10 were civilians.
Through it all, the United States has backed Israel with more than $21 billion worth of weaponry and diplomatic support including repeatedly vetoing United Nations Security Council ceasefire resolutions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hakeem Jeffries Pilloried for Putting Pro-Industry Democrats on AI Policy Task Force, Despite Voter Distrust of Big Tech
"This is the most populist moment of voter rage I've ever seen, and the leading Democrats are absolutely hostile to the idea of doing anything to address Silicon Valley's massive power," said one anti-monopoly expert.
Dec 10, 2025
At a time when the American public, and especially Democratic voters, express overwhelming distrust of artificial intelligence and Big Tech, the top House Democrat is being accused of failing to meet the moment.
On Tuesday, in preparation for an executive order to be signed this week by President Donald Trump, which would seek to block states from implementing new AI regulations, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) unveiled his own effort to cozy up to the industry, whose major players have set aside more than $200 million to push out anti-AI politicians during the 2026 midterms, according to the New York Times.
Jeffries announced the creation of a “House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy,” which will “develop policy expertise in partnership with the innovation community, relevant stakeholders, and committees of jurisdiction.”
What immediately caught the eye of critics was the list of fellow Democrats Jeffries picked to serve on the commission. It will be co-chaired by Reps. Ted Lieu (Calif.), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), and Valerie Foushee (NC), with Reps. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.) and Frank Pallone (NJ) serving as ex officio co-chairs.
As Sludge reported Tuesday: "The panel’s leaders rank among the House Democrats with the deepest ties to Big Tech and AI, from holding millions of dollars in tech stock to the contributions they’ve raised for their campaigns and the Republican-backed deregulation bills they've signed onto."
In July, Gottheimer introduced a bill along with Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) "that would require financial regulators to create 'AI Innovation Labs' where firms could experiment with AI-driven financial products under looser regulations and without the normal threats of enforcement actions."
Gottheimer is also a major stakeholder in Microsoft, which has invested tens of millions of dollars into AI and nearly $7.5 million on lobbying in 2025 so far. Beyond the almost $100,000 in contributions Gottheimer has received from Microsoft, he is also a former executive who received anywhere from $1 million to $5 million last year from his stock holdings in the company, according to financial disclosure forms. He also frequently trades in other AI power players like Amazon, Meta, and Dell.
Lofgren, meanwhile, has accepted more money from the Internet industry over the course of her career than all but one other current House Democrat—including $265,000 from Google, $115,000 from Apple, and $110,000 from Meta, according to data from OpenSecrets.
In September 2024, Lofgren co-sponsored a bill introduced by Rep. Jay Abernolte (R-Calif.) which "would create a federal 'center for AI advancement and reliability' that it would instruct to work closely with private companies and other stakeholders on developing 'voluntary best practices and technical standards for evaluating the reliability, robustness, resilience, security, and safety of artificial intelligence systems.'"
Foushee, a member of the corporate-backed New Democrat Coalition, rode to Congress in 2022 with more than $1 million from the Protect Our Future political action committee, which was backed by former FTX CEO and convicted fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried.
In response to Trump's industry-friendly "AI Action Plan" in July, Foushee and the New Democrats unveiled their own "Innovation Agenda," which called for federal tax credits to companies that "reskill" workers and perform private research and development as well as federal investments in apprenticeships and "labor market data modernization."
Jeffries has neglected to take a position on Trump's proposal to preempt state regulations. Last Monday, he told reporters, "That conversation hasn't been brought to the leadership level yet."
In his statement announcing the Democratic commission on Tuesday, Jeffries said, "It is important that American companies continue to thrive" in the arena of AI, while "at the same time, Congress must consider what policies are needed to prevent bad actors from exploiting this transformative technology and inflicting harm upon the American people." However, he did not specifically mention Trump's pending block on state regulations.
A poll released Friday by the progressive group Demand Progress showed that Americans across the political spectrum are unsettled by AI's influence in Washington: 68% of respondents overall said they were more worried that "the US government will not regulate artificial intelligence enough," as opposed to just 21% who feared too much regulation. While Democrats and independents were somewhat more concerned about underregulation at 71%, Republicans largely shared those fears, with 62% saying they feared the government would not regulate AI enough.
The consensus was even stronger regarding Big Tech's power over AI policy, with 78% of respondents overall saying it had too much influence. This included 81% of Democrats and independents and 74% of Republicans.
With this in mind, many critics were puzzled by Jeffries' decision to stack his AI commission with some of the industry's top allies.
As Aaron Regunberg wrote in the New Republic last month, harnessing anger against the rapid, largely unregulated expansion of expensive, energy-sucking AI data centers was an essential part of Democrats' victories across the board in November's off-year elections:
In New Jersey, Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill’s closing argument was a pledge to freeze electricity rates, which have soared because of data-center demand.
In Virginia, Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger won after pledging to make data centers “pay their own way,” and many Democrats went even further.
At least one candidate, John McAuliff, flipped a seat in the House of Delegates by focusing almost entirely on tying his Republican opponent to the “unchecked growth” of data centers, with an ad that asked, “Do you want more of these in your backyard?”
And in Georgia, Democrats won their first nonfederal statewide races in decades, earning 60% of the vote against two Republican members of the Public Service Commission by criticizing Big Tech “sweetheart deals” and campaigning for policies “to ensure that the communities that they’re extracting from” don’t end up with their “water supplies … tapped out or their energy … maxed out.”
"This is the most populist moment of voter rage I've ever seen, and the leading Democrats are absolutely hostile to the idea of doing anything to address Silicon Valley's massive power," said Matt Stoller, an anti-monopoly expert.
"Anticorruption is one of the strongest arguments with the broadest appeal in American politics right now, but the Democratic leadership simply refuses to stop tanking it," added Matt Duss, a former advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
"I have never seen a gulf this wide between Democratic leadership and the party writ large," said author Zachary D. Carter. "The top is corrupt, the base is raging against corruption."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


