Cumulative Effect of Flexible Duty-hour Policies on Resident Outcomes: Long-term Follow-up Results From the FIRST Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Khorfan R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7755030 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Cumulative Effect of Flexible Duty-hour Policies on Resident Outcomes: Long-term Follow-up Results From the FIRST Trial.
Khorfan Rhami R Yuce Tarik K TK Love Remi R Yang Anthony D AD Chung Jeanette J Hoyt David B DB Lewis Frank R FR Bilimoria Karl Y KY
Annals of surgery 20200501 5
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundConcerns persist about the effect of current duty hour reforms on resident educational outcomes. We investigated whether a flexible, less-restrictive duty hour policy (Flexible Policy) was associated with differential general surgery examination performance compared with current ACGME duty hour policy (Standard Policy).Study designWe obtained examination scores on the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination, Qualifying Examination (written boards), and Certifying Examination (oral boards) for residents in 117 general surgery residency programs that participated in the Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees (FIRST) Trial. Using bivariate analyses and regression models, we compared resident examination performance across study arms (Flexible Policy vs Standard Policy) for 2015 and 2016, and 1 year of the Qualifying Examination and Certifying Examination. Adjusted analyses accounted for program-level factors, including the stratification variable for randomization.ResultsIn 2016, FIRST trial participants were 4,363 general surgery residents. Mean American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination scores for residents were not significantly different between study groups (Flexible Policy vs Standard Policy) overall (Flexible Policy: mean [SD] 502.6 [100.9] vs Standard Policy: 502.7 [98.6]; p = 0.98) or for any individual postgraduate year level. There was no difference in pass rates between study arms for either the Qualifying Examination (Flexible Policy: 90.4% vs Standard Policy: 90.5%; p = 0.99) or Certifying Examination (Flexible Policy: 86.3% vs Standard Policy: 88.6%; p = 0.24). Results from adjusted analyses were consistent with these findings.ConclusionsFlexible, less-restrictive duty hour policies were not associated with differences in general surgery resident performance on examinations during the FIRST Trial. However, more years under flexible duty hour policies might be needed to observe an effect.
| S-EPMC5851285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConcern persists that extended shifts in medical residency programs may adversely affect patient safety.MethodsWe conducted a cluster-randomized noninferiority trial in 63 internal-medicine residency programs during the 2015-2016 academic year. Programs underwent randomization to a group with standard duty hours, as adopted by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in July 2011, or to a group with more flexible duty-hour rules that did not specify limits on shift length or mandatory time off between shifts. The primary outcome for each program was the change in unadjusted 30-day mortality from the pretrial year to the trial year, as ascertained from Medicare claims. We hypothesized that the change in 30-day mortality in the flexible programs would not be worse than the change in the standard programs (difference-in-difference analysis) by more than 1 percentage point (noninferiority margin). Secondary outcomes were changes in five other patient safety measures and risk-adjusted outcomes for all measures.ResultsThe change in 30-day mortality (primary outcome) among the patients in the flexible programs (12.5% in the trial year vs. 12.6% in the pretrial year) was noninferior to that in the standard programs (12.2% in the trial year vs. 12.7% in the pretrial year). The test for noninferiority was significant (P = 0.03), with an estimate of the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (0.93%) for a between-group difference in the change in mortality that was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1 percentage point. Differences in changes between the flexible programs and the standard programs in the unadjusted rate of readmission at 7 days, patient safety indicators, and Medicare payments were also below 1 percentage point; the noninferiority criterion was not met for 30-day readmissions or prolonged length of hospital stay. Risk-adjusted measures generally showed similar findings.ConclusionsAllowing program directors flexibility in adjusting duty-hour schedules for trainees did not adversely affect 30-day mortality or several other measured outcomes of patient safety. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; iCOMPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02274818.).
| S-EPMC6476299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConcern surrounding the effect of resident fatigue on patient care recently led the National Steering Committee on Resident Duty Hours to publish Canadian recommendations suggesting that duty periods of 24 or more consecutive hours without restorative sleep should be avoided. We sought to characterize how different training programs are preparing for the effect of such changes on education, patient care and provider well-being.MethodsUsing constructivist grounded theory methodology, we conducted 18 one-on-one semistructured interviews with program directors, division directors and department chiefs from 11 residency programs affiliated with one Canadian medical school. We gathered and analyzed data iteratively until we reached theoretical saturation.ResultsThe key theme articulated by our participants was that changes in resident duty hours would potentially lead to gaps in the provision of clinical care. These changes affect acute care specialties based primarily in the inpatient setting (e.g., medicine, surgery) more than primarily ambulatory (e.g., family medicine) or shift-model based (e.g., emergency) specialties. Potential strategies to address gaps in clinical care include resident-based solutions, faculty-based solutions and solutions based on other providers (e.g., nonacademic physicians, physician extenders). Each solution has unique advantages and disadvantages in terms of education, continuity of care, preparedness for practice and provider well-being.InterpretationOur data-driven framework serves as a guide for programs to anticipate challenges of satisfying clinical care needs in the face of changes to resident duty hours, while balancing education, care continuity, preparedness for practice and provider well-being. Our findings challenge the "one-size-fits-all" approach to changes to resident duty hours and endorse flexibility in enacting duty hour regulations based on specialty-specific factors.
| S-EPMC4084747 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Resident duty hour reforms of 2003 had the potential to create a major impact on the delivery of inpatient care.We examine whether the reforms influenced the probability of a patient experiencing a prolonged hospital length of stay (PLOS), a measure reflecting either inefficiency of care or the development of complications that may slow the rate of discharge.Conditional logistic models to compare PLOS in more versus less teaching-intensive hospitals before and after the reform, adjusting for patient comorbidities, common time trends, and hospital site.Medicare (N = 6,059,015) and Veterans Affairs (VA) (N = 210,276) patients admitted for medical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, or gastrointestinal bleeding) or surgical procedures (general, orthopedic, and vascular) from July 2000 to June 2005.Prolonged length of stay.Modeling all medical conditions together, the odds of prolonged stay in the first year post reform at more versus less teaching intensive hospitals was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.97-1.05) for Medicare and 1.07 (0.94-1.20) for the VA. Results were similarly negative in the second year post reform. For "combined surgery" the post year 1 odds ratios were 1.04 (0.98-1.09) and 0.94 (0.78-1.14) for Medicare and the VA respectively, and similarly unchanged in post year 2. Isolated increases in the probability of prolonged stay did occur for some vascular surgery procedures.Hospitals generally found ways to cope with duty hour reform without increasing the prevalence of prolonged hospital stays, a marker of either inefficient care or complications.
| S-EPMC3279179 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo measure the effect of duty periods no longer than 16 hours on patient care and resident education.Patients and methodsAs part of our Educational Innovations Project, we piloted a novel resident schedule for an inpatient service that eliminated shifts longer than 16 hours without increased staffing or decreased patient admissions on 2 gastroenterology services from August 29 to November 27, 2009. Patient care variables were obtained through medical record review. Resident well-being and educational variables were collected by weekly surveys, end of rotation evaluations, and an electronic card-swipe system.ResultsPatient care metrics, including 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission rate, and length of stay, were unchanged for the 196 patient care episodes in the 5-week intervention month compared with the 274 episodes in the 8 weeks of control months. However, residents felt less prepared to manage cross-cover of patients (P = .006). There was a nonsignificant trend toward decreased perception of quality of education and balance of personal and professional life during the intervention month. Residents reported working fewer weekly hours overall during the intervention (64.3 vs 68.9 hours; P = .40), but they had significantly more episodes with fewer than 10 hours off between shifts (24 vs 2 episodes; P = .004).ConclusionInpatient hospital services can be staffed with residents working shifts less than 16 hours without additional residents. However, cross-cover of care, quality of education, and time off between shifts may be adversely affected.
| S-EPMC3046938 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextThe ACGME-released revisions to the 2003 duty hour standards.ObjectiveTo review the impact of the 2003 duty hour reform as it pertains to resident and patient outcomes.Data sourcesMedline (1989-May 2010), Embase (1989-June 2010), bibliographies, pertinent reviews, and meeting abstracts.Study selectionWe included studies examining the relationship between the pre- and post-2003 time periods and patient outcomes (mortality, complications, errors), resident education (standardized test scores, clinical experience), and well-being (as measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory). We excluded non-US studies.Data extractionOne rater used structured data collection forms to abstract data on study design, quality, and outcomes. We synthesized the literature qualitatively and included a meta-analysis of patient mortality.ResultsOf 5,345 studies identified, 60 met eligibility criteria. Twenty-eight studies included an objective outcome related to patients; 10 assessed standardized resident examination scores; 26 assessed resident operative experience. Eight assessed resident burnout. Meta-analysis of the mortality studies revealed a significant improvement in mortality in the post-2003 time period with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.9 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.95). These results were significant for medical (OR 0.91; 95% CI: 0.85, 0.98) and surgical patients (OR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.97). However, significant heterogeneity was present (I(2) 83%). Patient complications were more nuanced. Some increased in frequency; others decreased. Outcomes for resident operative experience and standardized knowledge tests varied substantially across studies. Resident well-being improved in most studies.LimitationsMost studies were observational. Not all studies of mortality provided enough information to be included in the meta-analysis. We used unadjusted odds ratios in the meta-analysis; statistical heterogeneity was substantial. Publication bias is possible.ConclusionsSince 2003, patient mortality appears to have improved, although this could be due to secular trends. Resident well-being appears improved. Change in resident educational experience is less clear.
| S-EPMC3138977 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Resident duty hour limits, new requirements for supervision, and an enhanced focus on patient safety have shown mixed effects on resident quality of life, patient safety, and resident competency. Few studies have assessed how recent graduates feel these changes have affected their education. OBJECTIVE: We assessed recent graduates' perceptions about the effects of duty hour and supervision requirements on their education. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of graduates from South Carolina Area Health Education Consortium-affiliated family medicine residency programs from 2005 to 2009 by using logistic regression to determine associations between participant characteristics and survey responses. RESULTS: Graduates (N = 136) completed the survey with a 51.3% response rate. Nearly all (96%) reported that residency prepared them for their current work hours; 97% reported they felt adequately supervised; 81% worked fewer hours in practice than in residency; 20% believed the limits had restricted their clinical experience; and 3% felt duty hour limits were more important than supervision. Graduates who practiced in a mid-sized communities were more likely to report duty hour limits restricted their clinical experience than individuals practicing in communities of <10 000 (OR = 6.30; 95% CI, 1.38-28.72). CONCLUSIONS: Most graduates who responded to the survey felt supervision was equally or more important than limits on resident duty hours. However, 20% of respondents felt that the duty hour standards limited their education. The duty hour and supervision requirements challenge educators to ensure quality education.
| S-EPMC3613314 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveResident duty hour (RDH) restrictions in postgraduate medical education is a controversial yet important topic for study. There is limited literature on authentic trainee perceptions surrounding RDH restrictions to inform evaluation and future planning. Online forums are a widely accessible, yet underused resource, for insight into trainee perceptions. Our objective was to qualitatively assess trainee perceptions of RDH restrictions on online discussion forums.SettingOnline discussion forums; Premed101 (Canadian forum) and Student Doctor Network (SDN) (American forum).Participants6630 posts from 161 discussion threads; comprising 429 posts in 14 threads from Premed101 and 6201 posts in 147 threads from SDN. Posters included medical students, residents and attending physicians.DesignData were analysed inductively and iteratively to create themes and subthemes. Cocoding, consensus-based decision making and an audit trail were used to ensure trustworthiness.ResultsKey findings distilled across both forums include: the relationship between hours worked and competence, the inapplicability of blanket RDH restrictions to all specialties and the inter-relationship between fatigue and patient safety. Discussions of RDH restriction compliance and perceived consequence for the reporting of violations were also featured on the American SDN forum.ConclusionsThe findings of this study reveal multiple themes pertinent to the implementation and revision of RDH restrictions. The most prominent theme was the inapplicability of blanket restrictions on duty hours theme due to the diversity of training needs across specialties and the environmental context of training programmes. Other discussions included the inter-relationship of patient safety and resident competence with duty hours. Lastly, concerns regarding the lack of transparency and psychological safety surrounding RDH violations, were discussed.
| S-EPMC9516167 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4275102 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMedical trainees' duty hours have received attention globally; restrictions in Europe, New Zealand and some Canadian provinces are much lower than the 80 hours per week enforced in USA. In USA, resident duty hours have been implemented without evidence simultaneously reflecting competing concerns about patient safety and physician education. The objective is to prospectively evaluate the implications of alternative resident duty hour rules for patient safety, trainee education and intern sleep and alertness.Methods and analysis63 US internal medicine training programmes were randomly assigned 1:1 to the 2011 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident duty hour rules or to rules more flexible in intern shift length and number of hours off between shifts for academic year 2015-2016. The primary outcome is calculated for each programme as the difference in 30-day mortality rate among Medicare beneficiaries with any of several prespecified principal diagnoses in the intervention year minus 30-day mortality in the preintervention year among Medicare beneficiaries with any of several prespecified principal diagnoses. Additional safety outcomes include readmission rates, prolonged length of stay and costs. Measures derived from trainees' and faculty responses to surveys and from time-motion studies of interns compare the educational experiences of residents. Measures derived from wrist actigraphy, subjective ratings and psychomotor vigilance testing compare the sleep and alertness of interns. Differences between duty hour groups in outcomes will be assessed by intention-to-treat analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the protocol and served as the IRB of record for 40 programmes that agreed to sign an Institutional Affiliation Agreement. Twenty-three programmes opted for a local review process.Trial registration numberNCT02274818; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC6157525 | biostudies-literature