Evaluating the Impact of ACGME Resident Duty Hour Restrictions on Patient Outcomes for Bilateral Breast Reductions

Background:. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented duty-hour restrictions limiting residents to 80 hours per week in 2003 and further extended restrictions in 2011 to improve resident and patient well-being. Numerous studies have examined the effects of these restrictions on patient outcomes with inconclusive results. Few efforts have been made to examine the impact of this reform on the safety of common plastic surgery procedures. This study seeks to assess the influence of ACGME duty-hour restrictions on patient outcomes, using bilateral breast reduction mammoplasty as a marker for resident involvement and operative autonomy. Methods:. Bilateral breast reductions performed in the 3 years before and after each reform were collected from the National Inpatient Sample database: pre-duty hours (2000–2002), duty hours (2006–2008), and extended duty hours (2012–2014). Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to investigate the association between ACGME duty hour restrictions on medical and surgical complications. Results:. Overall, 19,423 bilateral breast reductions were identified. Medical and surgical complication rates in these patients increased with each successive iteration of duty hour restrictions (P < 0.001). The 2003 duty-hour restriction independently associated with increased surgical (OR = 1.51, P < 0.001) and medical complications (OR = 1.85, P < 0.001). The 2011 extended duty-hour restriction was independently associated with increased surgical complications (OR = 1.39, P < 0.001). Conclusions:. ACGME duty-hour restrictions do not seem associated with better patient outcomes for bilateral breast reduction although there are multiple factors involved. These considerations and consequences should be considered in decisions that affect resident quality of life, education, and patient safety

Evaluation of Health Literacy in Plastic Surgery Using a Crowdsourced Patient Survey

Background:. Little is known about the levels of health literacy (HL) among plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) patients compared with the general population. This study aimed to characterize HL levels in patients interested in plastic surgery and identify potential risk factors associated with inadequate levels of HL among this population. Methods:. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk was used to distribute a survey. The Chew’s Brief Health Literacy Screener was used to evaluate the level of HL. The cohort was divided into two groups: non-PRS and PRS groups. Four subgroups were created: cosmetic, noncosmetic, reconstructive, and nonreconstructive groups. A multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to assess associations between levels of HL and sociodemographic characteristics. Results:. A total of 510 responses were analyzed in this study. Of those, 34% of participants belong to the PRS group and 66% to the non-PRS group. Inadequate levels of HL were evidenced in 52% and 50% of the participants in the non-PRS and PRS groups, respectively (P = 0.780). No difference in HL levels was found in the noncosmetic versus cosmetic groups (P = 0.783). A statistically significant difference in HL levels was evidenced between nonreconstructive versus reconstructive groups after holding other sociodemographic factors constant (0.29, OR; 95% CI, 0.15–0.58; P < 0.001). Conclusions:. Inadequate levels of HL were present in almost half of the cohort, which highlights the importance of adequately assessing HL levels in all patients. It is of utmost importance to evaluate HL in clinical practice using evidence-based criteria to better inform and educate patients interested in plastic surgery