Dataset Information

Education Outcomes in a Duty-Hour Flexibility Trial in Internal Medicine.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Concern persists that inflexible duty-hour rules in medical residency programs may adversely affect the training of physicians. METHODS:We randomly assigned 63 internal medicine residency programs in the United States to be governed by standard duty-hour policies of the 2011 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) or by more flexible policies that did not specify limits on shift length or mandatory time off between shifts. Measures of educational experience included observations of the activities of interns (first-year residents), surveys of trainees (both interns and residents) and faculty, and intern examination scores. RESULTS:There were no significant between-group differences in the mean percentages of time that interns spent in direct patient care and education nor in trainees' perceptions of an appropriate balance between clinical demands and education (primary outcome for trainee satisfaction with education; response rate, 91%) or in the assessments by program directors and faculty of whether trainees' workload exceeded their capacity (primary outcome for faculty satisfaction with education; response rate, 90%). Another survey of interns (response rate, 49%) revealed that those in flexible programs were more likely to report dissatisfaction with multiple aspects of training, including educational quality (odds ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 2.73) and overall well-being (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.67 to 3.65). In contrast, directors of flexible programs were less likely to report dissatisfaction with multiple educational processes, including time for bedside teaching (response rate, 98%; odds ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.49). Average scores (percent correct answers) on in-training examinations were 68.9% in flexible programs and 69.4% in standard programs; the difference did not meet the noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points (difference, -0.43; 95% CI, -2.38 to 1.52; P=0.06 for noninferiority). od Institute and the ACGME; iCOMPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02274818 .). CONCLUSIONS:There was no significant difference in the proportion of time that medical interns spent on direct patient care and education between programs with standard duty-hour policies and programs with more flexible policies. Interns in flexible programs were less satisfied with their educational experience than were their peers in standard programs, but program directors were more satisfied. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blo

SUBMITTER: Desai SV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6101652 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Education Outcomes in a Duty-Hour Flexibility Trial in Internal Medicine.

Desai Sanjay V SV Asch David A DA Bellini Lisa M LM Chaiyachati Krisda H KH Liu Manqing M Sternberg Alice L AL Tonascia James J Yeager Alyssa M AM Asch Jeremy M JM Katz Joel T JT Basner Mathias M Bates David W DW Bilimoria Karl Y KY Dinges David F DF Even-Shoshan Orit O Shade David M DM Silber Jeffrey H JH Small Dylan S DS Volpp Kevin G KG Shea Judy A JA

The New England journal of medicine 20180320 16

<h4>Background</h4>Concern persists that inflexible duty-hour rules in medical residency programs may adversely affect the training of physicians.<h4>Methods</h4>We randomly assigned 63 internal medicine residency programs in the United States to be governed by standard duty-hour policies of the 2011 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) or by more flexible policies that did not specify limits on shift length or mandatory time off between shifts. Measures of educational ex ...[more]

PMID: 29557719

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA purpose of duty-hour regulations is to reduce sleep deprivation in medical trainees, but their effects on sleep, sleepiness, and alertness are largely unknown.MethodsWe randomly assigned 63 internal-medicine residency programs in the United States to follow either standard 2011 duty-hour policies or flexible policies that maintained an 80-hour workweek without limits on shift length or mandatory time off between shifts. Sleep duration and morning sleepiness and alertness were compared between the two groups by means of a noninferiority design, with outcome measures including sleep duration measured with actigraphy, the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (with scores ranging from 1 [extremely alert] to 9 [extremely sleepy, fighting sleep]), and a brief computerized Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT-B), with long response times (lapses) indicating reduced alertness.ResultsData were obtained over a period of 14 days for 205 interns at six flexible programs and 193 interns at six standard programs. The average sleep time per 24 hours was 6.85 hours (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.61 to 7.10) among those in flexible programs and 7.03 hours (95% CI, 6.78 to 7.27) among those in standard programs. Sleep duration in flexible programs was noninferior to that in standard programs (between-group difference, -0.17 hours per 24 hours; one-sided lower limit of the 95% confidence interval, -0.45 hours; noninferiority margin, -0.5 hours; P = 0.02 for noninferiority), as was the score on the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (between-group difference, 0.12 points; one-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval, 0.31 points; noninferiority margin, 1 point; P<0.001). Noninferiority was not established for alertness according to the PVT-B (between-group difference, -0.3 lapses; one-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval, 1.6 lapses; noninferiority margin, 1 lapse; P = 0.10).ConclusionsThis noninferiority trial showed no more chronic sleep loss or sleepiness across trial days among interns in flexible programs than among those in standard programs. Noninferiority of the flexible group for alertness was not established. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and American Council for Graduate Medical Education; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02274818.).

Project description:IntroductionIn 2011, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented new Common Program Requirements to regulate duty hours of resident physicians, with three goals: improved patient safety, quality of resident education and quality of life for trainees. We sought to assess Internal Medicine program director (IMPD) perceptions of the 2011 Common Program Requirements in July 2012, one year following implementation of the new standards.MethodsA cross-sectional study of all IMPDs at ACGME-accredited programs in the United States (N?=?381) was performed using a 32-question, self-administered survey. Contact information was identified for 323 IMPDs. Three individualized emails were sent to each director over a 6-week period, requesting participation in the survey. Outcomes measured included approval of duty hours regulations, as well as perceptions of changes in graduate medical education and patient care resulting from the revised ACGME standards.ResultsA total of 237 surveys were returned (73% response rate). More than half of the IMPDs (52%) reported "overall" approval of the 2011 duty hour regulations, with greater than 70% approval of all individual regulations except senior resident daily duty periods (49% approval) and 16-hour intern shifts (17% approval). Although a majority feel resident quality of life has improved (55%), most IMPDs believe that resident education (60%) is worse. A minority report that quality (8%) or safety (11%) of patient care has improved.ConclusionOne year after implementation of new ACGME duty hour requirements, IMPDs report overall approval of the standards, but strong disapproval of 16-hour shift limits for interns. Few program directors perceive that the duty hour restrictions have resulted in better care for patients or education of residents. Although resident quality of life seems improved, most IMPDs report that their own workload has increased. Based on these results, the intended benefits of duty hour regulations may not yet have been realized.

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.).

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to address the controversy surrounding the effects of duty hour reform on new surgeon performance, we analyzed patients treated by new surgeons following the transition to independent practice.Summary background dataIn 2003, duty hour reform affected all US surgical training programs. Its impact on the performance of new surgeons remains unstudied.MethodsWe studied 30-day mortality among 1,483,074 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing general and orthopedic operations between 1999 and 2003 ("traditional" era) and 2009 and 2013 ("modern" era). The operations were performed by 2762 new surgeons trained before the reform, 2119 new surgeons trained following reform and 15,041 experienced surgeons. We used a difference-in-differences analysis comparing outcomes in matched patients treated by new versus experienced surgeons within each era, controlling for the hospital, operation, and patient risk factors.ResultsTraditional era odds of 30-day mortality among matched patients treated by new versus experienced surgeons were significantly elevated [odds ratio (OR) 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.05, 1.22), P < 0.001). The modern era elevated odds of mortality were not significant [OR 1.06; 95% CI (0.97-1.16), P = 0.239]. Relative performance of new and experienced surgeons with respect to 30-day mortality did not appear to change from the traditional era to the modern era [OR 0.93; 95% CI (0.83-1.05), P = 0.233]. There were statistically significant adverse changes over time in relative performance to experienced surgeons in prolonged length of stay [OR 1.08; 95% CI (1.02-1.15), P = 0.015], anesthesia time [9 min; 95% CI (8-10), P < 0.001], and costs [255USD; 95% CI (2-508), P = 0.049].ConclusionsDuty hour reform showed no significant effect on 30-day mortality achieved by new surgeons compared to their more experienced colleagues. Patients of new surgeons, however, trained after duty hour reform displayed some increases in the resources needed for their care.

Dataset Information

Education Outcomes in a Duty-Hour Flexibility Trial in Internal Medicine.

Publications

Education Outcomes in a Duty-Hour Flexibility Trial in Internal Medicine.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets