How protective is the working time directive?

Nurse-led versus doctor-led preoperative assessment for elective surgical patients requiring regional or general anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

The organization of elective surgical services has changed in recent years, with increasing use of day surgery, reduced hospital stay and preoperative assessment (POA) performed in an outpatient clinic rather than by a doctor in a hospital ward after admission. Nurse specialists often lead these clinic-based POA services and have responsibility for assessing a patient's fitness for anaesthesia and surgery and organizing any necessary investigations or referrals. These changes offer many potential benefits for patients, but it is important to demonstrate that standards of patient care are maintained as nurses take on these responsibilities.

OBJECTIVES

We wished to examine whether a nurse-led service rather than a doctor-led service affects the quality and outcome of preoperative assessment (POA) for elective surgical participants of all ages requiring regional or general anaesthesia. We considered the evidence that POA led by nurses is equivalent to that led by doctors for the following outcomes: cancellation of the operation for clinical reasons; cancellation of the operation by the participant; participant satisfaction with the POA; gain in participant knowledge or information; perioperative complications within 28 days of surgery, including mortality; and costs of POA. We planned to investigate whether there are differences in quality and outcome depending on the age of the participant, the training of staff or the type of surgery or anaesthesia provided.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and two trial registers on 13 February 2013, and performed reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of participants (adults or children) scheduled for elective surgery requiring general, spinal or epidural anaesthesia that compared POA, including assessment of physical status and anaesthetic risk, undertaken or led by nursing staff with that undertaken or led by doctors. This assessment could have taken place in any setting, such as on a ward or in a clinic. We included studies in which the comparison assessment had taken place in a different setting. Because of the variation in service provision, we included two separate comparison groups: specialist doctors, such as anaesthetists; and non-specialist doctors, such as interns.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological approaches as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration, including independent review of titles, data extraction and risk of bias assessment by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two eligible studies, both comparing nurse-led POA with POA led by non-specialist doctors, with a total of 2469 participants. One study was randomized and the other quasi-randomized. Blinding of staff and participants to allocation was not possible. In both studies, all participants were additionally assessed by a specialist doctor (anaesthetist in training), who acted as the reference standard. In neither study did participants proceed from assessment by nurse or junior doctor to surgery. Neither study reported on cancellations of surgery, gain in participant information or knowledge or perioperative complications. Reported outcomes focused on the accuracy of the assessment. One study undertook qualitative assessment of participant satisfaction with the two forms of POA in a small number of non-randomly selected participants (42 participant interviews), and both groups of participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the care received. This study also examined economic modelling of costs of the POA as performed by the nurse and by the non-specialist doctor based on the completeness of the assessment as noted in the study and found no difference in cost.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, no evidence is available from RCTs to allow assessment of whether nurse-led POA leads to an increase or a decrease in cancellations or perioperative complications or in knowledge or satisfaction among surgical participants. One study, which was set in the UK, reported equivalent costs from economic models. Nurse-led POA is now widespread, and it is not clear whether future RCTs of this POA strategy are feasible. A diagnostic test accuracy review may provide useful information.

Effects of the accreditation council for graduate medical education duty hour limits on sleep, work hours, and safety

OBJECTIVE

To mitigate the risks of fatigue-related medical errors, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education introduced work hour limits for resident physicians in 2003. Our goal was to determine whether work hours, sleep, and safety changed after implementation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education standards.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study in which residents from 3 large pediatric training programs provided daily reports of work hours and sleep. In addition, they completed reports of near-miss and actual motor vehicle crashes, occupational exposures, self-reported medical errors, and ratings of educational experience. They were screened for depression and burnout. Concurrently, at 2 of the centers, data on medication errors were collected prospectively by using an established active surveillance method.

RESULTS

A total of 220 residents provided 6007 daily reports of their work hours and sleep, and 16 158 medication orders were reviewed. Although scheduling changes were made in each program to accommodate the standards, 24- to 30-hour shifts remained common, and the frequency of residents' call remained largely unchanged. There was no change in residents' measured total work hours or sleep hours. There was no change in the overall rate of medication errors, and there was a borderline increase in the rate of resident physician ordering errors, from 1.06 to 1.38 errors per 100 patient-days. Rates of motor vehicle crashes, occupational exposures, depression, and self-reported medical errors and overall ratings of work and educational experiences did not change. The mean length of extended-duration (on-call) shifts decreased 2.7% to 28.5 hours, and rates of resident burnout decreased significantly (from 75.4% to 57.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Total hours of work and sleep did not change after implementation of the duty hour standards. Although fewer residents were burned out, rates of medication errors, resident depression, and resident injuries and educational ratings did not improve.

The history of simulation in medical education and possible future directions

INTRODUCTION

Clinical simulation is on the point of having a significant impact on health care education across professional boundaries and in both the undergraduate and postgraduate arenas.

SCOPE OF SIMULATION

The use of simulation spans a spectrum of sophistication, from the simple reproduction of isolated body parts through to complex human interactions portrayed by simulated patients or high-fidelity human patient simulators replicating whole body appearance and variable physiological parameters.

GROWTH OF SIMULATION

After a prolonged gestation, recent advances have made available affordable technologies that permit the reproduction of clinical events with sufficient fidelity to permit the engagement of learners in a realistic and meaningful way. At the same time, reforms in undergraduate and postgraduate education, combined with political and societal pressures, have promoted a safety-conscious culture where simulation provides a means of risk-free learning in complex, critical or rare situations. Furthermore, the importance of team-based and interprofessional approaches to learning and health care can be promoted.

CONCLUSION

However, at the present time the quantity and quality of research in this area of medical education is limited. Such research is needed to enable educators to justify the cost and effort involved in simulation and to confirm the benefit of this mode of learning in terms of the outcomes achieved through this process.

The English National Health Service: 1979--2005

This article aims to assess the development of the English National Health Service (NHS) over the period 1979--2005, against the original, and often repeated, core objectives of the system: that it be universal in offering coverage to all members of the population in times of health care need; that it be comprehensive in its provision of health care services; and that it be (largely) free at the point of use. Comprehensiveness is open to interpretation, and may depend upon the wealth of the nation. Universality and (largely) free care at the point of use, which lend themselves to the principle of equal access for equal need, are more concrete, and it is not difficult to ascertain if they have been substantially and/or systematically violated. The article details briefly the developments in resource allocation, provider payment mechanisms, incentives and accountability, and notes that much of the emphasis on health sector change since the mid 1980s has been placed upon improving supply side efficiency and reducing waiting lists/times. Improving NHS efficiency, and indeed related aspirations associated with choice and health outcomes, can be perceived as 'secondary' objectives, in that they should not serve to undermine the core objectives of the system, assuming that the security offered by having an accessible, universal health care system is considered worthy of protection. The overall conclusion is that the NHS has performed quite well against its core objectives to date, although it is possible that the current preoccupation with choice and health outcomes will lead us down a different policy path in the future.