Dataset Information

Design and recruitment of the randomized order safety trial evaluating resident-physician schedules (ROSTERS) study.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:While the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education limited first year resident-physicians to 16 consecutive work hours from 2011 to 2017, resident-physicians in their second year or higher were permitted to work up to 28?h consecutively. This paper describes the Randomized Order Safety Trial Evaluating Resident-physician Schedules (ROSTERS) study, a clustered-randomized crossover clinical trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of eliminating traditional shifts of 24?h or longer for second year or higher resident-physicians in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). METHODS:ROSTERS was a multi-center non-blinded trial in 6 PICUs at US academic medical centers. The primary aim was to compare patient safety between the extended duration work roster (EDWR), which included shifts ?24?h, and a rapidly cycling work roster (RCWR), where shifts were limited to a maximum of 16?h. Information on potential medical errors was gathered and used for classification by centrally trained physician reviewers who were blinded to the study arm. Secondary aims were to assess the relationship of the study arm to resident-physician sleep duration, work hours and neurobehavioral performance. RESULTS:The study involved 6577 patients with a total of 38,821 patient days (n?=?18,749 EDWR, n?=?20,072 RCWR). There were 413 resident-physician rotations included in the study (n?=?203 EDWR, n?=?210 RCWR). Resident-physician questionnaire data were over 95% complete. CONCLUSIONS:Results from data collected in the ROSTERS study will be evaluated for the impact of resident-physician schedule roster on patient safety outcomes in PICUs, and will allow for examination of a number of secondary outcome measures. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02134847.

SUBMITTER: Blackwell T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6482052 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Design and recruitment of the randomized order safety trial evaluating resident-physician schedules (ROSTERS) study.

Blackwell Terri T Kriesel Dana R DR Vittinghoff Eric E O'Brien Conor S CS Sullivan Jason P JP Viyaran Natalie C NC Rahman Shadab A SA Lockley Steven W SW Barger Laura K LK Halbower Ann C AC Poynter Sue E SE Wright Kenneth P KP Yu Pearl L PL Zee Phyllis C PC Landrigan Christopher P CP Czeisler Charles A CA Stone Katie L KL

Contemporary clinical trials 20190315

<h4>Introduction</h4>While the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education limited first year resident-physicians to 16 consecutive work hours from 2011 to 2017, resident-physicians in their second year or higher were permitted to work up to 28 h consecutively. This paper describes the Randomized Order Safety Trial Evaluating Resident-physician Schedules (ROSTERS) study, a clustered-randomized crossover clinical trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of eliminating traditional shi ...[more]

PMID: 30885799

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundShorter resident duty periods are increasingly mandated to improve patient safety and physician well-being. However, increases in continuity-related errors may counteract the purported benefits of reducing fatigue. We evaluated the effects of 3 resident schedules in the intensive care unit (ICU) on patient safety, resident well-being and continuity of care.MethodsResidents in 2 university-affiliated ICUs were randomly assigned (in 2-month rotation-blocks from January to June 2009) to in-house overnight schedules of 24, 16 or 12 hours. The primary patient outcome was adverse events. The primary resident outcome was sleepiness, measured by the 7-point Stanford Sleepiness Scale. Secondary outcomes were patient deaths, preventable adverse events, and residents' physical symptoms and burnout. Continuity of care and perceptions of ICU staff were also assessed.ResultsWe evaluated 47 (96%) of 49 residents, all 971 admissions, 5894 patient-days and 452 staff surveys. We found no effect of schedule (24-, 16- or 12-h shifts) on adverse events (81.3, 76.3 and 78.2 events per 1000 patient-days, respectively; p = 0.7) or on residents' sleepiness in the daytime (mean rating 2.33, 2.61 and 2.30, respectively; p = 0.3) or at night (mean rating 3.06, 2.73 and 2.42, respectively; p = 0.2). Seven of 8 preventable adverse events occurred with the 12-hour schedule (p = 0.1). Mortality rates were similar for the 3 schedules. Residents' somatic symptoms were more severe and more frequent with the 24-hour schedule (p = 0.04); however, burnout was similar across the groups. ICU staff rated residents' knowledge and decision-making worst with the 16-hour schedule.InterpretationOur findings do not support the purported advantages of shorter duty schedules. They also highlight the trade-offs between residents' symptoms and multiple secondary measures of patient safety. Further delineation of this emerging signal is required before widespread system change.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT00679809.

Project description:ImportanceWhile the relationship between resident work hours and patient safety has been extensively studied, little research has evaluated the role of attending physician supervision on patient safety.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of increased attending physician supervision on an inpatient resident general medical service on patient safety and educational outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis 9-month randomized clinical trial performed on an inpatient general medical service of a large academic medical center used a crossover design. Participants were clinical teaching attending physicians and residents in an internal medicine residency program.InterventionsTwenty-two faculty provided either (1) increased direct supervision in which attending physicians joined work rounds on previously admitted patients or (2) standard supervision in which attending physicians were available but did not join work rounds. Each faculty member participated in both arms in random order.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary safety outcome was rate of medical errors. Resident education was evaluated via a time-motion study to assess resident participation on rounds and via surveys to measure resident and attending physician educational ratings.ResultsOf the 22 attending physicians, 8 (36%) were women, with 15 (68%) having more than 5 years of experience. A total of 1259 patients (5772 patient-days) were included in the analysis. The medical error rate was not significantly different between standard vs increased supervision (107.6; 95% CI, 85.8-133.7 vs 91.1; 95% CI, 76.9-104.0 per 1000 patient-days; P = .21). Time-motion analysis of 161 work rounds found no difference in mean length of time spent discussing established patients in the 2 models (202; 95% CI, 192-212 vs 202; 95% CI, 189-215 minutes; P = .99). Interns spoke less when an attending physician joined rounds (64; 95% CI, 60-68 vs 55; 95% CI, 49-60 minutes; P = .008). In surveys, interns reported feeling less efficient (41 [55%] vs 68 [73%]; P = .02) and less autonomous (53 [72%] vs 86 [91%]; P = .001) with an attending physician present and residents felt less autonomous (11 [58%] vs 30 [97%]; P < .001). Conversely, attending physicians rated the quality of care higher when they participated on work rounds (20 [100%] vs 16 [80%]; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceIncreased direct attending physician supervision did not significantly reduce the medical error rate. In designing morning work rounds, residency programs should reconsider their balance of patient safety, learning needs, and resident autonomy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03318198.

Project description:BackgroundThe effects on patient safety of eliminating extended-duration work shifts for resident physicians remain controversial.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, crossover trial comparing two schedules for pediatric resident physicians during their intensive care unit (ICU) rotations: extended-duration work schedules that included shifts of 24 hours or more (control schedules) and schedules that eliminated extended shifts and cycled resident physicians through day and night shifts of 16 hours or less (intervention schedules). The primary outcome was serious medical errors made by resident physicians, assessed by intensive surveillance, including direct observation and chart review.ResultsThe characteristics of ICU patients during the two work schedules were similar, but resident physician workload, described as the mean (±SD) number of ICU patients per resident physician, was higher during the intervention schedules than during the control schedules (8.8±2.8 vs. 6.7±2.2). Resident physicians made more serious errors during the intervention schedules than during the control schedules (97.1 vs. 79.0 per 1000 patient-days; relative risk, 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 1.72; P<0.001). The number of serious errors unitwide were likewise higher during the intervention schedules (181.3 vs. 131.5 per 1000 patient-days; relative risk, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.43 to 1.71). There was wide variability among sites, however; errors were lower during intervention schedules than during control schedules at one site, rates were similar during the two schedules at two sites, and rates were higher during intervention schedules than during control schedules at three sites. In a secondary analysis that was adjusted for the number of patients per resident physician as a potential confounder, intervention schedules were no longer associated with an increase in errors.ConclusionsContrary to our hypothesis, resident physicians who were randomly assigned to schedules that eliminated extended shifts made more serious errors than resident physicians assigned to schedules with extended shifts, although the effect varied by site. The number of ICU patients cared for by each resident physician was higher during schedules that eliminated extended shifts. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ROSTERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02134847.).

Project description:ImportanceResidents must prepare for effective communication with patients after medical errors. The video-based communication assessment (VCA) is software that plays video of a patient scenario, asks the physician to record what they would say, engages crowdsourced laypeople to rate audio recordings of physician responses, and presents feedback to physicians.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of VCA feedback in resident error disclosure skill training.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-blinded, randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 2022 to May 2023 at 7 US internal medicine and family medicine residencies (10 total sites). Participants were second-year residents attending required teaching conferences. Data analysis was performed from July to December 2023.InterventionResidents completed 2 VCA cases at time 1 and were randomized to the intervention, an individual feedback report provided in the VCA application after 2 weeks, or to control, in which feedback was not provided until after time 2. Residents completed 2 additional VCA cases after 4 weeks (time 2).Main outcomes and measuresPanels of crowdsourced laypeople rated recordings of residents disclosing simulated medical errors to create scores on a 5-point scale. Reports included learning points derived from layperson comments. Mean time 2 ratings were compared to test the hypothesis that residents who had access to feedback on their time 1 performance would score higher at time 2 than those without feedback access. Residents were surveyed about demographic characteristics, disclosure experience, and feedback use. The intervention's effect was examined using analysis of covariance.ResultsA total of 146 residents (87 [60.0%] aged 25-29 years; 60 female [41.0%]) completed the time 1 VCA, and 103 (70.5%) completed the time 2 VCA (53 randomized to intervention and 50 randomized to control); of those, 28 (54.9%) reported reviewing their feedback. Analysis of covariance found a significant main effect of feedback between intervention and control groups at time 2 (mean [SD] score, 3.26 [0.45] vs 3.14 [0.39]; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.08-0.48; P = .01). In post hoc comparisons restricted to residents without prior disclosure experience, intervention residents scored higher than those in the control group at time 2 (mean [SD] score, 3.33 [0.43] vs 3.09 [0.44]; difference, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.01-0.48; P = .007). Worse performance at time 1 was associated with increased likelihood of dropping out before time 2 (odds ratio, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.06-7.84; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, self-directed review of crowdsourced feedback was associated with higher ratings of internal medicine and family medicine residents' error disclosure skill, particularly for those without real-life error disclosure experience, suggesting that such feedback may be an effective way for residency programs to address their requirement to prepare trainees for communicating with patients after medical harm.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06234085.

Project description:BackgroundRacial/ethnic minority groups remain underrepresented in clinical trials. Many strategies to increase minority recruitment focus on minority communities and emphasize common diseases such as hypertension. Scant literature focuses on minority recruitment to trials of less common conditions, often conducted in specialty clinics and dependent on physician referrals. We identified trust/mistrust of specialist physician investigators and institutions conducting medical research and consequent participant reluctance to participate in clinical trials as key-shared barriers across racial/ethnic groups. We developed a trust-based continuous quality improvement intervention to build trust between specialist physician investigators and community minority-serving physicians and ultimately potential trial participants. To avoid the inherent biases of non-randomized studies, we evaluated the intervention in the national Randomized Recruitment Intervention Trial (RECRUIT). This report presents the design of RECRUIT. Specialty clinic follow-up continues through April 2017.MethodsWe hypothesized that specialist physician investigators and coordinators trained in the trust-based continuous quality improvement intervention would enroll a greater proportion of minority participants in their specialty clinics than specialist physician investigators in control specialty clinics. Specialty clinic was the unit of randomization. Using continuous quality improvement, the specialist physician investigators and coordinators tailored recruitment approaches to their specialty clinic characteristics and populations. Primary analyses were adjusted for clustering by specialty clinic within parent trial and matching covariates.ResultsRECRUIT was implemented in four multi-site clinical trials (parent trials) supported by three National Institutes of Health institutes and included 50 associated specialty clinics from these parent trials. Using current data, we have 88% power or greater to detect a 0.15 or greater difference from the currently observed control proportion adjusting for clustering. We detected no differences in baseline matching criteria between intervention and control specialty clinics (all p values > 0.17).ConclusionRECRUIT was the first multi-site randomized control trial to examine the effectiveness of a trust-based continuous quality improvement intervention to increase minority recruitment into clinical trials. RECRUIT's innovations included its focus on building trust between specialist investigators and minority-serving physicians, the use of continuous quality improvement to tailor the intervention to each specialty clinic's specific racial/ethnic populations and barriers to minority recruitment, and the use of specialty clinics from more than one parent multi-site trial to increase generalizability. The effectiveness of the RECRUIT intervention will be determined after the completion of trial data collection and planned analyses.

Dataset Information

Design and recruitment of the randomized order safety trial evaluating resident-physician schedules (ROSTERS) study.

Publications

Design and recruitment of the randomized order safety trial evaluating resident-physician schedules (ROSTERS) study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets