@article{3919, author = {Christopher S. Parshuram and Andre C K B Amaral and Niall D. Ferguson and Ross Baker and Edward Etchells and Virginia Flintoft and John Granton and Lorelei A. Lingard and Haresh Kirpalani and Sangeeta Mehta and Harvey Moldofsky and Damon C. Scales and Thomas E. Stewart and Andrew R. Willan and Jan O. Friedrich and Canadian Critical Care Trials Group}, title = {Patient safety, resident well-being and continuity of care with different resident duty schedules in the intensive care unit: a randomized trial.}, abstract = {

BACKGROUND: Shorter 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.

METHODS: Residents 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.

RESULTS: We 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.

INTERPRETATION: Our 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 REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT00679809.

}, year = {2015}, journal = {CMAJ}, volume = {187}, pages = {321-9}, month = {03/2015}, issn = {1488-2329}, doi = {10.1503/cmaj.140752}, language = {eng}, }