Teaching hospital financial status and patient outcomes following ACGME duty hour reform

Physicians' working time restriction and its impact on patient safety: an integrative review

BACKGROUND

Although shift work is a part of the physicians' routine, there is controversy on the length of shifts and adequate rest for safe professional practice. If on the one hand long working hours might have negative impact on patient safety by interfering with the psychological and physical functioning of physicians, on the other shorter working hours might impair the safety of patients due to interference with the continuity of care.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the impact of restrictions to physicians' working hours on patient safety.

METHOD

Integrative literature review in which we surveyed studies on restriction to physicians' working time and patient safety included in databases National Library of Medicine (PubMed) and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) until May 2018. Thirty-five studies which met the inclusion criteria were included.

RESULTS

Patient safety outcomes analyzed in the included studies were mortality, adverse events, continuity of care, in-hospital complications, readmission rate and length of stay at hospital. Restriction to working time was associated with variable impact on patient safety indicators, but often did not modify their performance.

CONCLUSION

Restrictions to physicians' working time did not always improved patient safety indicators. Focusing on interventions which only seek to limit the workload of physicians might be insufficient to bring consistent improvement to patient care.

Patient Safety Outcomes under Flexible and Standard Resident Duty-Hour Rules

BACKGROUND

Concern persists that extended shifts in medical residency programs may adversely affect patient safety.

METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

The 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Allowing 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.).

Development of the individualised Comparative Effectiveness of Models Optimizing Patient Safety and Resident Education (iCOMPARE) trial: a protocol summary of a national cluster-randomised trial of resident duty hour policies in internal medicine

INTRODUCTION

Medical 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 ANALYSIS

63 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 DISSEMINATION

The 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 NUMBER

NCT02274818; Pre-results.

Evaluation of hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program is well recognized in surgical quality measurement and is used widely in research. Recent calls to make it a platform for national public reporting and pay-for-performance initiatives highlight the importance of understanding which types of hospitals elect to participate in the program. Our objective was to compare characteristics of hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to characteristics of nonparticipating US hospitals.

METHODS

The 2013 American Hospital Association and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Healthcare Cost Report Information System datasets were used to compare characteristics and operating margins of hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to those of nonparticipating hospitals.

RESULTS

Of 3,872 general medical and surgical hospitals performing inpatient surgery in the United States, 475 (12.3%) participated in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Participating hospitals performed 29.0% of all operations in the United States. Compared with nonparticipating hospitals, American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program hospitals had a higher mean annual inpatient surgical case volume (6,426 vs 1,874; P < .001) and a larger mean number of hospital beds (420 vs 167; P < .001); participating hospitals were more often teaching hospitals (35.2% vs 4.1%; P < .001), had more quality-related accreditations (P < .001), and had higher mean operating margins (P < .05). States with the highest proportions of hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program had established surgical quality improvement collaboratives.

CONCLUSION

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program hospitals are large teaching hospitals with more quality-related accreditations and financial resources. These findings should be considered when reviewing research studies using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data, and the findings reinforce that efforts are needed to facilitate participation in surgical quality improvement by all hospital types.

Assessing the utility of ICU readmissions as a quality metric: an analysis of changes mediated by residency work-hour reforms

BACKGROUND

ICU readmissions are associated with increased mortality and costs; however, it is unclear whether these outcomes are caused by readmissions or by residual confounding by illness severity. An assessment of temporal changes in ICU readmission in response to a specific policy change could help disentangle these possibilities. We sought to determine whether ICU readmission rates changed after 2003 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Resident Duty Hours reform ("reform") and whether there were temporally corresponding changes in other ICU outcomes.

METHODS

We used a difference-in-differences approach using Project IMPACT (Improved Methods of Patient Information Access of Core Clinical Tasks). Piecewise regression models estimated changes in outcomes immediately before and after reform in 274,491 critically ill medical and surgical patients in 151 community and academic US ICUs. Outcome measures included ICU readmission, ICU mortality, and in-hospital post-ICU-discharge mortality.

RESULTS

In ICUs with residents, ICU readmissions increased before reform (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.22-1.84; P < .01), and decreased after (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; P = .03). This abrupt decline in ICU readmissions after reform differed significantly from an increase in readmissions observed in ICUs without residents at this time (difference-in-differences P < .01). No comparable changes in mortality were observed between ICUs with vs without residents.

CONCLUSIONS

The changes in ICU readmission rates after reform, without corresponding changes in mortality, suggest that ICU readmissions are not causally related to other untoward patient outcomes. Instead, ICU readmission rates likely reflect operational aspects of care that are not patient-centered, making them less useful indicators of ICU quality.

National survey of pharmacy residency on-call programs

PURPOSE

The results of a national survey to evaluate on-call practices and responsibilities of pharmacy residents nationwide, as well as opinions related to duty-hour changes, are reported.

METHODS

A 39-question survey was distributed to 1292 residency program directors (RPDs) listed in the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) online residency directory, which includes programs in all stages of the accreditation process. The survey opened on November 7, 2011, and closed on November 28, 2011. The survey collected demographic information and answers to questions about the residency's on-call component (if applicable) and barriers to the creation of an on-call component. Respondents were also asked to indicate their support of or opposition to the adoption of the 2011 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty-hour rules and identify the areas of greatest concern.

RESULTS

Of the 1292 RPDs listed in the ASHP online residency directory to whom the survey was sent, 521 surveys were completed, yielding a response rate of 40%. Of these, 471 identified their residency program as including or excluding an on-call component. Of the 138 programs with on-call services, 102 programs (74%) indicated the inclusion of an overnight experience. Programs that did not utilize an on-call component indicated barriers such as a perceived lack of demand (39%) and duty-hour limitations (21%). Common on-call activities included drug information consults and therapeutic drug monitoring. There was not a clear consensus from RPDs regarding the adoption of the 2011 ACGME duty-hour standards.

CONCLUSION

Among usable responses to a survey of pharmacy residency programs, 29% indicated that their program included an on-call component. On-call programs varied greatly in activities, location, hours, and requirements.

Does admission to a teaching hospital affect acute myocardial infarction survival?

PURPOSE

Previous studies have found that teaching hospitals produce better acute myocardial infarction (AMI) outcomes than nonteaching hospitals. However, these analyses generally excluded patients transferred out of nonteaching hospitals and did not study outcomes by patient risk level. The objective of this study was to determine whether admission to a teaching hospital was associated with greater survival after accounting for patient transfers and patient severity.

METHOD

This observational study used logistic models to examine the association between hospital teaching status and 30-day mortality of AMI patients, adjusting for patient comorbidities and common time trends. The sample included 1,309,554 Medicare patients admitted from 1996 to 2004 to 3,761 acute care hospitals for AMI. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause, all-location mortality.

RESULTS

Mortality was slightly lower in minor teaching hospitals compared with nonteaching hospitals (odds ratio [OR] 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-0.99) but not different between major teaching and nonteaching hospitals (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.96-1.03). The odds of mortality in minor teaching hospitals decreased 4.2% relative to nonteaching hospitals during the seven-year period (OR from 0.98 to 0.94). There was no consistent pattern of association between teaching status and patient severity.

CONCLUSIONS

After correctly accounting for the ability of nonteaching hospitals to appropriately transfer patients in need of different care, there was no survival benefit on average for initial admission to a teaching hospital for AMI. Further more, higher-risk patients did not benefit from initial admission to teaching hospitals.