All Content

This cost analysis of the 2011 duty hour regulations for resident physicians demonstrates that the regulations will almost certainly result in increased costs for teaching hospitals, unless preventable adverse events decline substantially after the new regulations are implemented.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's 2003 regulations limiting housestaff duty hours have generated an expansive field of research into their impact on fatigue, workload, clinical outcomes, and patient safety. This commentary aims to put the current research into a practical context and provides eight priorities that should guide teaching institutions in their efforts to balance both physician and patient safety. The authors highlight alternative staffing models (e.g., no more 24-hour shifts), improved sign-out procedures, greater monitoring and evaluation of duty hour changes, the importance of adequate supervision and workload intensity, and better designed financial incentives to promote successful policy change. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has sponsored an Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee to review the important research and related issues around work hour restrictions.

Efforts to comply with resident work-hour restrictions have placed a significant burden on hospitals and training programs, particularly in addressing the impact of these restrictions on patient safety. This AHRQ-supported study provides a framework to address the scheduling practices that aim to minimize sleep deprivation, optimize teamwork, and promote patient safety. The authors share a number of case examples and discuss policy implications around developing evidence-based scheduling and systematic culture change. This study’s lead author, Dr. Christopher Landrigan, was featured in a past AHRQ WebM&M conversation that discussed the role of sleep deprivation in residency training and its effect on medical errors.

The 2003 regulations reducing housestaff duty hours have been controversial. Although some research has shown fewer errors when housestaff worked shorter shifts, many commentators have raised concern about the potential for errors associated with more transfers of care between physicians. This study sought to directly examine the effect of duty hours limitations on clinical outcomes by comparing medical patients hospitalized on a resident service to patients on a non-teaching service before and after duty hour reduction. There was no detectable increase in adverse events among patients cared for by residents, and some outcomes improved (eg, potential medication errors). Another study in the same issue also found reduced inpatient mortality among medical (but not surgical) patients after implementation of duty hour limitations. The accompanying editorial discusses these two studies in the context of growing evidence that limiting work hours "does no harm" to patients.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's 2003 regulations limiting housestaff duty hours likely improved residents' quality of life, but the effect on patients has been controversial. A prior review did not find evidence linking reduced work hours to improved patient safety. This study analyzed administrative data from 591 community hospitals before and after implementation of duty hours limitations to determine their effect on inpatient mortality. Mortality was reduced among medical patients in teaching hospitals (compared with non-teaching hospitals) after duty hour limitations came into effect, but no such changes were seen in surgical patients. Another study published in the same issue found improvements in some clinical outcomes among medical patients at a single teaching hospital. The accompanying editorial discusses these two studies in the context of growing evidence that limiting work hours "does no harm" to patients.