Implementing the 2009 Institute of Medicine recommendations on resident physician work hours, supervision, and safety

Long working hours and sleep deprivation have been a facet of physician training in the US since the advent of the modern residency system. However, the scientific evidence linking fatigue with deficits in human performance, accidents and errors in industries from aeronautics to medicine, nuclear power, and transportation has mounted over the last 40 years. This evidence has also spawned regulations to help ensure public safety across safety-sensitive industries, with the notable exception of medicine. In late 2007, at the behest of the US Congress, the Institute of Medicine embarked on a year-long examination of the scientific evidence linking resident physician sleep deprivation with clinical performance deficits and medical errors. The Institute of Medicine’s report, entitled “Resident duty hours: Enhancing sleep, supervision and safety”, published in January 2009, recommended new limits on resident physician work hours and workload, increased supervision, a heightened focus on resident physician safety, training in structured handovers and quality improvement, more rigorous external oversight of work hours and other aspects of residency training, and the identification of expanded funding sources necessary to implement the recommended reforms successfully and protect the public and resident physicians themselves from preventable harm. Given that resident physicians comprise almost a quarter of all physicians who work in hospitals, and that taxpayers, through Medicare and Medicaid, fund graduate medical education, the public has a deep investment in physician training. Patients expect to receive safe, high-quality care in the nation’s teaching hospitals. Because it is their safety that is at issue, their voices should be central in policy decisions affecting patient safety. It is likewise important to integrate the perspectives of resident physicians, policy makers, and other constituencies in designing new policies. However, since its release, discussion of the Institute of Medicine report has been largely confined to the medical education community, led by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). To begin gathering these perspectives and developing a plan to implement safer work hours for resident physicians, a conference entitled “Enhancing sleep, supervision and safety: What will it take to implement the Institute of Medicine recommendations?” was held at Harvard Medical School on June 17–18, 2010. This White Paper is a product of a diverse group of 26 representative stakeholders bringing relevant new information and innovative practices to bear on a critical patient safety problem. Given that our conference included experts from across disciplines with diverse perspectives and interests, not every recommendation was endorsed by each invited conference participant. However, every recommendation made here was endorsed by the majority of the group, and many were endorsed unanimously. Conference members participated in the process, reviewed the final product, and provided input before publication. Participants provided their individual perspectives, which do not necessarily represent the formal views of any organization. In September 2010 the ACGME issued new rules to go into effect on July 1, 2011. Unfortunately, they stop considerably short of the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations and those endorsed by this conference. In particular, the ACGME only applied the limitation of 16 hours to first-year resident physicans. Thus, it is clear that policymakers, hospital administrators, and residency program directors who wish to implement safer health care systems must go far beyond what the ACGME will require. We hope this White Paper will serve as a guide and provide encouragement for that effort. Resident physician workload and supervision By the end of training, a resident physician should be able to practice independently. Yet much of resident physicians’ time is dominated by tasks with little educational value. The caseload can be so great that inadequate reflective time is left for learning based on clinical experiences. In addition, supervision is often vaguely defined and discontinuous. Medical malpractice data indicate that resident physicians are frequently named in lawsuits, most often for lack of supervision. The recommendations are: The ACGME should adjust resident physicians workload requirements to optimize educational value. Resident physicians as well as faculty should be involved in work redesign that eliminates nonessential and noneducational activity from resident physician dutiesMechanisms should be developed for identifying in real time when a resident physician’s workload is excessive, and processes developed to activate additional providersTeamwork should be actively encouraged in delivery of patient care. Historically, much of medical training has focused on individual knowledge, skills, and responsibility. As health care delivery has become more complex, it will be essential to train resident and attending physicians in effective teamwork that emphasizes collective responsibility for patient care and recognizes the signs, both individual and systemic, of a schedule and working conditions that are too demanding to be safeHospitals should embrace the opportunities that resident physician training redesign offers. Hospitals should recognize and act on the potential benefits of work redesign, eg, increased efficiency, reduced costs, improved quality of care, and resident physician and attending job satisfactionAttending physicians should supervise all hospital admissions. Resident physicians should directly discuss all admissions with attending physicians. Attending physicians should be both cognizant of and have input into the care patients are to receive upon admission to the hospitalInhouse supervision should be required for all critical care services, including emergency rooms, intensive care units, and trauma services. Resident physicians should not be left unsupervised to care for critically ill patients. In settings in which the acuity is high, physicians who have completed residency should provide direct supervision for resident physicians. Supervising physicians should always be physically in the hospital for supervision of resident physicians who care for critically ill patientsThe ACGME should explicitly define “good” supervision by specialty and by year of training. Explicit requirements for intensity and level of training for supervision of specific clinical scenarios should be providedCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should use graduate medical education funding to provide incentives to programs with proven, effective levels of supervision. Although this action would require federal legislation, reimbursement rules would help to ensure that hospitals pay attention to the importance of good supervision and require it from their training programs Resident physician work hours Although the IOM “Sleep, supervision and safety” report provides a comprehensive review and discussion of all aspects of graduate medical education training, the report’s focal point is its recommendations regarding the hours that resident physicians are currently required to work. A considerable body of scientific evidence, much of it cited by the Institute of Medicine report, describes deteriorating performance in fatigued humans, as well as specific studies on resident physician fatigue and preventable medical errors. The question before this conference was what work redesign and cultural changes are needed to reform work hours as recommended by the Institute of Medicine’s evidence-based report? Extensive scientific data demonstrate that shifts exceeding 12–16 hours without sleep are unsafe. Several principles should be followed in efforts to reduce consecutive hours below this level and achieve safer work schedules. The recommendations are: Limit resident physician work hours to 12–16 hour maximum shiftsA minimum of 10 hours off duty should be scheduled between shiftsResident physician input into work redesign should be actively solicitedSchedules should be designed that adhere to principles of sleep and circadian science; this includes careful consideration of the effects of multiple consecutive night shifts, and provision of adequate time off after night work, as specified in the IOM reportResident physicians should not be scheduled up to the maximum permissible limits; emergencies frequently occur that require resident physicians to stay longer than their scheduled shifts, and this should be anticipated in scheduling resident physicians’ work shiftsHospitals should anticipate the need for iterative improvement as new schedules are initiated; be prepared to learn from the initial phase-in, and change the plan as neededAs resident physician work hours are redesigned, attending physicians should also be considered; a potential consequence of resident physician work hour reduction and increased supervisory requirements may be an increase in work for attending physicians; this should be carefully monitored, and adjustments to attending physician work schedules made as needed to prevent unsafe work hours or working conditions for this group“Home call” should be brought under the overall limits of working hours; work load and hours should be monitored in each residency program to ensure that resident physicians and fellows on home call are getting sufficient sleepMedicare funding for graduate medical education in each hospital should be linked with adherence to the Institute of Medicine limits on resident physician work hours Moonlighting by resident physicians The Institute of Medicine report recommended including external as well as internal moonlighting in working hour limits. The recommendation is: All moonlighting work hours should be included in the ACGME working hour limits and actively monitored. Hospitals should formalize a moonlighting policy and establish systems for actively monitoring resident physician moonlighting Safety of resident physicians The “Sleep, supervision and safety” report also addresses fatigue-related harm done to resident physicians themselves. The report focuses on two main sources of physical injury to resident physicians impaired by fatigue, ie, needle-stick exposure to blood-borne pathogens and motor vehicle crashes. Providing safe transportation home for resident physicians is a logistical and financial challenge for hospitals. Educating physicians at all levels on the dangers of fatigue is clearly required to change driving behavior so that safe hospital-funded transport home is used effectively. Fatigue-related injury prevention (including not driving while drowsy) should be taught in medical school and during residency, and reinforced with attending physicians; hospitals and residency programs must be informed that resident physicians’ ability to judge their own level of impairment is impaired when they are sleep deprived; hence, leaving decisions about the capacity to drive to impaired resident physicians is not recommendedHospitals should provide transportation to all resident physicians who report feeling too tired to drive safely; in addition, although consecutive work should not exceed 16 hours, hospitals should provide transportation for all resident physicians who, because of unforeseen reasons or emergencies, work for longer than consecutive 24 hours; transportation under these circumstances should be automatically provided to house staff, and should not rely on self-identification or request Training in effective handovers and quality improvement Handover practice for resident physicians, attendings, and other health care providers has long been identified as a weak link in patient safety throughout health care settings. Policies to improve handovers of care must be tailored to fit the appropriate clinical scenario, recognizing that information overload can also be a problem. At the heart of improving handovers is the organizational effort to improve quality, an effort in which resident physicians have typically been insufficiently engaged. The recommendations are: Hospitals should train attending and resident physicians in effective handovers of careHospitals should create uniform processes for handovers that are tailored to meet each clinical setting; all handovers should be done verbally and face-to-face, but should also utilize written toolsWhen possible, hospitals should integrate hand-over tools into their electronic medical records (EMR) systems; these systems should be standardized to the extent possible across residency programs in a hospital, but may be tailored to the needs of specific programs and services; federal government should help subsidize adoption of electronic medical records by hospitals to improve signoutWhen feasible, handovers should be a team effort including nurses, patients, and familiesHospitals should include residents in their quality improvement and patient safety efforts; the ACGME should specify in their core competency requirements that resident physicians work on quality improvement projects; likewise, the Joint Commission should require that resident physicians be included in quality improvement and patient safety programs at teaching hospitals; hospital administrators and residency program directors should create opportunities for resident physicians to become involved in ongoing quality improvement projects and root cause analysis teams; feedback on successful quality improvement interventions should be shared with resident physicians and broadly disseminatedQuality improvement/patient safety concepts should be integral to the medical school curriculum; medical school deans should elevate the topics of patient safety, quality improvement, and teamwork; these concepts should be integrated throughout the medical school curriculum and reinforced throughout residency; mastery of these concepts by medical students should be tested on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) stepsFederal government should support involvement of resident physicians in quality improvement efforts; initiatives to improve quality by including resident physicians in quality improvement projects should be financially supported by the Department of Health and Human Services Monitoring and oversight of the ACGME While the ACGME is a key stakeholder in residency training, external voices are essential to ensure that public interests are heard in the development and monitoring of standards. Consequently, the Institute of Medicine report recommended external oversight and monitoring through the Joint Commission and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The recommendations are: Make comprehensive fatigue management a Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal; fatigue is a safety concern not only for resident physicians, but also for nurses, attending physicians, and other health care workers; the Joint Commission should seek to ensure that all health care workers, not just resident physicians, are working as safely as possibleFederal government, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, should encourage development of comprehensive fatigue management programs which all health systems would eventually be required to implementMake ACGME compliance with working hours a “ condition of participation” for reimbursement of direct and indirect graduate medical education costs; financial incentives will greatly increase the adoption of and compliance with ACGME standards Future financial support for implementation The Institute of Medicine’s report estimates that $1.7 billion (in 2008 dollars) would be needed to implement its recommendations. Twenty-five percent of that amount ($376 million) will be required just to bring hospitals into compliance with the existing 2003 ACGME rules. Downstream savings to the health care system could potentially result from safer care, but these benefits typically do not accrue to hospitals and residency programs, who have been asked historically to bear the burden of residency reform costs. The recommendations are: The Institute of Medicine should convene a panel of stakeholders, including private and public funders of health care and graduate medical education, to lay down the concrete steps necessary to identify and allocate the resources needed to implement the recommendations contained in the IOM “Resident duty hours: Enhancing sleep, supervision and safety” report. Conference participants suggested several approaches to engage public and private support for this initiativeEfforts to find additional funding to implement the Institute of Medicine recommendations should focus more broadly on patient safety and health care delivery reform; policy efforts focused narrowly upon resident physician work hours are less likely to succeed than broad patient safety initiatives that include residency redesign as a key componentHospitals should view the Institute of Medicine recommendations as an opportunity to begin resident physician work redesign projects as the core of a business model that embraces safety and ultimately saves resourcesBoth the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should take the Institute of Medicine recommendations into consideration when promulgating rules for innovation grantsThe National Health Care Workforce Commission should consider the Institute of Medicine recommendations when analyzing the nation’s physician workforce needs Recommendations for future research Conference participants concurred that convening the stakeholders and agreeing on a research agenda was key. Some observed that some sectors within the medical education community have been reluctant to act on the data. Several logical funders for future research were identified. But above all agencies, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is the only stakeholder that funds graduate medical education upstream and will reap savings downstream if preventable medical errors are reduced as a result of reform of resident physician work hours

Stability of the timing of food intake at daily and monthly timescales in young adults

Cross-sectional observations have shown that the timing of eating may be important for health-related outcomes. Here we examined the stability of eating timing, using both clock hour and relative circadian time, across one semester (n = 14) at daily and monthly time-scales. At three time points ~ 1 month apart, circadian phase was determined during an overnight in-laboratory visit and eating was photographically recorded for one week to assess timing and composition. Day-to-day stability was measured using the Composite Phase Deviation (deviation from a perfectly regular pattern) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to determine individual stability across months (weekly average compared across months). Day-to-day clock timing of caloric events had poor stability within individuals (~ 3-h variation; ICC = 0.12–0.34). The timing of eating was stable across months (~ 1-h variation, ICCs ranging from 0.54–0.63), but less stable across months when measured relative to circadian timing (ICC = 0.33–0.41). Our findings suggest that though day-to-day variability in the timing of eating has poor stability, the timing of eating measured for a week is stable across months within individuals. This indicates two relevant timescales: a monthly timescale with more stability in eating timing than a daily timescale. Thus, a single day’s food documentation may not represent habitual (longer timescale) patterns

Effect of Dupilumab on Sleep Apnea Severity in Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) report improved sleep quality after dupilumab, an anti IL4/13 therapy. Concurrent CRS and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) cases are not rare, and CRS seemingly raises nasal resistance. Thus, we hypothesized that improved sleep quality by dupilumab therapy in CRS patients might be due to lowered nasal resistance and subsequent improvement of unrecognized comorbid OSA. Patients with concurrent CRS and OSA were recruited. Nasal resistance was measured invasively with transnasal pressure and flow data collected during normal respiration in the supine position. Results from the first five participants did not support our hypothesis. Subjective and objective measures for CRS and nasal resistance values were improved with dupilumab therapy in CRS patients with nasal polyps. However, apnea severity and sleep-related subjective parameters did not change. In the patients with CRS without nasal polyps, no significant changes in either CRS or OSA-related measures were observed

Impact of Common Diabetes Risk Variant in MTNR1B

The risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increased by abnormalities in sleep quantity and quality, circadian alignment, and melatonin regulation. A common genetic variant in a receptor for the circadian-regulated hormone melatonin (MTNR1B) is associated with increased fasting blood glucose and risk of T2D, but whether sleep or circadian disruption mediates this risk is unknown. We aimed to test if MTNR1B diabetes risk variant rs10830963 associates with measures of sleep or circadian physiology in intensive in-laboratory protocols (n = 58–96) or cross-sectional studies with sleep quantity and quality and timing measures from self-report (n = 4,307–10,332), actigraphy (n = 1,513), or polysomnography (n = 3,021). In the in-laboratory studies, we found a significant association with a substantially longer duration of elevated melatonin levels (41 min) and delayed circadian phase of dim-light melatonin offset (1.37 h), partially mediated through delayed offset of melatonin synthesis. Furthermore, increased T2D risk in MTNR1B risk allele carriers was more pronounced in early risers versus late risers as determined by 7 days of actigraphy. Our results provide the surprising insight that the MTNR1B risk allele influences dynamics of melatonin secretion, generating a novel hypothesis that the MTNR1B risk allele may extend the duration of endogenous melatonin production later into the morning and that early waking may magnify the diabetes risk conferred by the risk allele

Making Residency Work Hour Rules Work

In July 2011, the ACGME implemented new rules that limit interns to 16 hours of work in a row, but continue to allow 2nd-year and higher resident physicians to work for up to 28 consecutive hours. Whether the ACGME's 2011 work hour limits went too far or did not go far enough has been hotly debated. In this article, we do not seek to re-open the debate about whether these standards get matters exactly right. Instead, we wish to address the issue of effective enforcement. That is, now that new work hour limits have been established, and given that the ACGME has been unable to enforce work hour limits effectively on its own, what is the best way to make sure the new limits are followed in order to reduce harm to residents, patients, and others due to sleep-deprived residents? We focus on three possible national approaches to the problem, one rooted in funding, one rooted in disclosure, and one rooted in tort law

Chronic sleep curtailment, even without extended (>16-h) wakefulness, degrades human vigilance performance

This is a data set derived from controlled in-laboratory conditions of individuals exposed to either control (equivalent to a sleep opportunity ~8h) or chronic sleep restricted conditions (equivalent to a sleep opportunity ~5.6h). This study was accomplished using a circadian forced desynchrony design on a 20-h day length. All subjects provided written informed consent prior to participation and all procedures were approved by the Partners Healthcare Institutional Review Board

Prediction of Vigilant Attention and Cognitive Performance Using Self-Reported Alertness, Circadian Phase, Hours since Awakening, and Accumulated Sleep Loss

Sleep restriction causes impaired cognitive performance that can result in adverse consequences in many occupational settings. Individuals may rely on self-perceived alertness to decide if they are able to adequately perform a task. It is therefore important to determine the relationship between an individual’s self-assessed alertness and their objective performance, and how this relationship depends on circadian phase, hours since awakening, and cumulative lost hours of sleep. Healthy young adults (aged 18–34) completed an inpatient schedule that included forced desynchrony of sleep/wake and circadian rhythms with twelve 42.85-hour “days” and either a 1:2 (n = 8) or 1:3.3 (n = 9) ratio of sleep-opportunity:enforced-wakefulness. We investigated whether subjective alertness (visual analog scale), circadian phase (melatonin), hours since awakening, and cumulative sleep loss could predict objective performance on the Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT), an Addition/Calculation Test (ADD) and the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST). Mathematical models that allowed nonlinear interactions between explanatory variables were evaluated using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Subjective alertness was the single best predictor of PVT, ADD, and DSST performance. Subjective alertness alone, however, was not an accurate predictor of PVT performance. The best AIC scores for PVT and DSST were achieved when all explanatory variables were included in the model. The best AIC score for ADD was achieved with circadian phase and subjective alertness variables. We conclude that subjective alertness alone is a weak predictor of objective vigilant or cognitive performance. Predictions can, however, be improved by knowing an individual’s circadian phase, current wake duration, and cumulative sleep loss

Robust stability of melatonin circadian phase, sleep metrics, and chronotype across months in young adults living in real‐world settings

Appropriate synchronization of the timing of behaviors with the circadian clock and adequate sleep are both important for almost every physiological process. The timing of the circadian clock relative to social (ie, local) clock time and the timing of sleep can vary greatly among individuals. Whether the timing of these processes is stable within an individual is not well-understood. We examined the stability of circadian-controlled melatonin timing, sleep timing, and their interaction across ~ 100 days in 15 students at a single university. At three time points ~ 35-days apart, circadian timing was determined from the dim-light melatonin onset (DLMO). Sleep behaviors (timing and duration) and chronotype (ie, mid-sleep time on free days corrected for sleep loss on school/work days) were determined via actigraphy and analyzed in ~ 1-month bins. Melatonin timing was stable, with an almost perfect relationship strength as determined via intraclass correlation coefficients ([ICC]=0.85); average DLMO timing across all participants only changed from the first month by 21 minutes in month 2 and 5 minutes in month 3. Sleep behaviors also demonstrated high stability, with ICC relationship strengths ranging from substantial to almost perfect (ICCs = 0.65-0.85). Average DLMO was significantly associated with average chronotype (r  = 0.53, P <.01), with chronotype displaying substantial stability across months (ICC = 0.61). These findings of a robust stability in melatonin timing and sleep behaviors in young adults living in real-world settings holds promise for a better understanding of the reliability of previous cross-sectional reports and for the future individualized strategies to combat circadian-associated disease and impaired safety (ie, “chronomedicine”).

Caloric and Macronutrient Intake Differ with Circadian Phase and between Lean and Overweight Young Adults

The timing of caloric intake is a risk factor for excess weight and disease. Growing evidence suggests, however, that the impact of caloric consumption on metabolic health depends on its circadian phase, not clock hour. The objective of the current study was to identify how individuals consume calories and macronutrients relative to circadian phase in real-world settings. Young adults (n = 106; aged 19 &plusmn; 1 years; 45 females) photographically recorded the timing and content of all calories for seven consecutive days using a smartphone application during a 30-day study. Circadian phase was determined from in-laboratory assessment of dim-light melatonin onset (DLMO). Meals were assigned a circadian phase relative to each participant&rsquo;s DLMO (0&deg;, ~23:17 h) and binned into 60&deg; bins. Lean (n = 68; 15 females) and non-lean (n = 38, 30 females) body composition was determined via bioelectrical impedance. The DLMO time range was ~10 h, allowing separation of clock time and circadian phase. Eating occurred at all circadian phases, with significant circadian rhythmicity (p &lt; 0.0001) and highest caloric intake at ~300&deg; (~1900 h). The non-lean group ate 8% more of their daily calories at an evening circadian phase (300&deg;) than the lean group (p = 0.007). Consumption of carbohydrates and proteins followed circadian patterns (p &lt; 0.0001) and non-lean participants ate 13% more carbohydrates at 240&deg; (~1500 h) than the lean group (p = 0.004). There were no significant differences when caloric intake was referenced to local clock time or sleep onset time (p &gt; 0.05). Interventions targeting the circadian timing of calories and macronutrients for weight management should be tested