Estimating minimum program volume needed to train surgeons: when 4 × 15 really equals 90

INTRODUCTION

Work-hour restrictions have decreased flexibility in scheduling and reduced exposure to certain operative cases. These restrictions may affect a resident's ability to meet certification requirements, particularly for rare, unscheduled cases (e.g., cardiothoracic transplants). We developed a computer-based simulation model using variables such as case volume and program size to demonstrate the influence of these factors on the likelihood of certifying a set of residents on rare cases.

METHODS

We built a simulator to predict the probability of attaining certification for surgical residents, using cardiothoracic transplants as a test case. Inputs to the model included operating times, call schedules, and procurement travel times, as well as information on the distribution of times between transplants.

RESULTS

We simulated 100 years of schedules using our current system parameters of an average of 33 heart and 31 lung transplants per year, and assuming an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-compliant daily-rotating call schedule. Despite having enough transplants to certify all residents for lungs if all opportunities were distributed equally among residents, the certification rate achieved when constrained by arrival time (and call schedules) and work restrictions was only 55%. Our calculations show that meeting minimum transplant-certification requirements for all residents would require at least 1.5 times the expected number of annual transplants.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model enables analysis of a given program's ability to certify its residents based on program size and volume. These results could be used to design alternative scheduling paradigms to improve certification rates, without requiring reductions in certification requirements or program size.

Safe staffing levels bill would set minimum nurse ratios in Wales

The politician behind a bill that would set minimum nurse staffing levels in Wales has defended it against the suggestion it has sparked hostility among other healthcare professionals.

The Swedish duty hour enigma

BACKGROUND

The Swedish resident duty hour limit is regulated by Swedish and European legal frameworks. With a maximum average of 40 working hours per week, the Swedish duty hour regulation is one of the most restrictive in the world. At the same time, the effects of resident duty hour limits have been neither debated nor researched in the Swedish context. As a result, little is known about the Swedish conceptual framework for resident duty hours, their restriction, or their outcomes: we call this "the Swedish duty hour enigma." This situation poses a further question: How do Swedish residents themselves construct a conceptual framework for duty hour restrictions?

METHODS

A case study was conducted at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm--an urban, research-intensive hospital setting. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 34 residents currently in training in 6 specialties. The empirical data analysis relied on theoretical propositions and was conducted thematically using a pattern-matching technique. The interview guide was based on four main topics: the perceived effect of duty hour restrictions on (1) patient care, (2) resident education, (3) resident well-being, and (4) research.

RESULTS

The residents did not perceive the volume of duty hours to be the main determinant of success or failure in the four contextual domains of patient care, resident education, resident well-being, and research. Instead, they emphasized resident well-being and a desire for flexibility.

CONCLUSIONS

According to Swedish residents' conceptual framework on duty hours, the amount of time spent on duty is not a proxy for the quality of resident training. Instead, flexibility, organization, and scheduling of duty hours are considered to be the factors that have the greatest influence on resident well-being, quality of learning, and opportunities to attain the competence needed for independent practice.

Resident duty hours around the globe: where are we now?

Safe and appropriate health care, especially in urgent or emergency situations, is the expectation of the public throughout the developed world. Achieving this goal requires appropriate levels of medical and other staff, appropriate training, and sensible working hours. Too often the brunt of such care, especially in out-of-hours situations, is borne by medical residents, who--to make matters worse--are frequently poorly supervised by more senior and experienced staff. Many jurisdictions have been alerted to this problem and are striving to correct it. However, the variation in attempts to restrict the actual hours worked by residents to "safe" levels is enormous, and all too often there is no consensus as to what should be put in place to achieve safe patient care. This paper sets out the current position for Europe, North America, and Australia.

RCN asks public to sign its petition for safe staffing

RCN Wales is urging members of the public to sign an e-petition supporting draft legislation on safer staffing.

Federal employees health benefits program modification of eligibility to certain employees on temporary appointments and certain employees on seasonal and intermittent schedules. Final rule

The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule to modify eligibility for enrollment under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program to certain temporary, seasonal, and intermittent employees who are identified as full-time employees. This final rule follows a notice of proposed rulemaking published July 29, 2014. This regulation will allow newly eligible Federal employees to enroll no later than January 2015.

Impact of states' nurse work hour regulations on overtime practices and work hours among registered nurses

OBJECTIVES

To examine the degree to which states' work hour regulations for nurses-policies regarding mandatory overtime and consecutive work hours-decrease mandatory overtime practice and hours of work among registered nurses.

METHODS

We analyzed a nationally representative sample of registered nurses from the National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses for years 2004 and 2008. We obtained difference-in-differences estimates of the effect of the nurse work hour policies on the likelihood of working mandatory overtime, working more than 40 hours per week, and working more than 60 hours per week for all staff nurses working in hospitals and nursing homes.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The mandatory overtime and consecutive work hour regulations were significantly associated with 3.9 percentage-point decreases in the likelihood of working overtime mandatorily and 11.5 percentage-point decreases in the likelihood of working more than 40 hours per week, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

State mandatory overtime and consecutive work hour policies are effective in reducing nurse work hours. The consecutive work hour policy appears to be a better regulatory tool for reducing long work hours for nurses.

California's nurse-to-patient ratio law and occupational injury

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether state-mandated minimum nurse-to-patient staffing ratios in California hospitals had an effect on reported occupational injury and illness rates.

METHODS

The difference-in-differences method was applied: The change in injury rates among hospital nurses after implementation of the law in California was compared to the change in 49 other states and the District of Columbia combined. Data were drawn from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and the California Employment Development Department, including numerator estimates of injury and illness cases and denominator estimates of the number of registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) employed in hospitals. Confidence intervals (CIs) for rates were constructed based on assumptions that favored the null hypothesis.

RESULTS

The most probable difference-in-differences estimate indicated that the California law was associated with 55.57 fewer occupational injuries and illnesses per 10,000 RNs per year, a value 31.6 % lower than the expected rate without the law. The most probable reduction for LPNs was 38.2 %. Analyses of CIs suggested that these reductions were unlikely to be due to chance [corrected].

CONCLUSIONS

Despite significant data restrictions and corresponding methodological limitations, the evidence suggests that the law was effective in reducing occupational injury and illness rates for both RNs and LPNs. Whether these 31.6 and 38.2 % reductions are maintained over time remains to be seen [corrected].