Skip to main content

All Content

Search Tips
Save
Selection
Format
Download
Published Date
Original Publication Date
Original Publication Date
PSNet Publication Date
Narrow Results By
PSNet Original Content
Commonly Searched Resource Types
1 - 5 of 5
Jha AK, Chan DC, Ridgway AB, et al. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28:1475-1484.
The seminal Institute of Medicine report To Err Is Human estimated that preventable errors cost the US health care system more than $17 billion annually. Although hospitals themselves currently bear only a small proportion of these costs, payers are increasingly seeking to realign incentives to both improve safety and control costs. This study examined the costs associated with both preventable adverse events and redundant tests (duplicate tests ordered for the same patient by different physicians). The authors estimate that eliminating preventable adverse events (principally health care–associated infections) alone could save the US health system more than $16 billion annually, with an additional $8 billion in savings potentially achievable by eliminating redundant tests. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' policy eliminating reimbursement for certain preventable conditions is an attempt to address this issue. A companion article explains that the savings realized by this policy are likely to be minimal.
Landrigan CP, Czeisler CA, Barger LK, et al. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007;33:19-29.
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.
Horwitz LI, Kosiborod M, Lin Z, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:97-103.
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.
Shetty KD, Bhattacharya J. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:73-80.
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.

Robins NS. New York NY: Delacorte Press; 1995. ISBN: 9780385308090. 

Robins, an investigative journalist, recounts the story of Libby Zion, who died at New York Hospital in 1984 allegedly at the hands of under-supervised and overworked residents. The book is an interesting and engaging account of a case and its aftermath, including the highly publicized malpractice trial and the formation of the Bell Commission, which regulated resident work-hours for the first time. The book provides an important historical context for this case and the debate surrounding it, the implications of which are still being felt today in the wake of national regulations for resident duty-hours.