A systematic review of the effects of residency training on patient outcomes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Residents are vital to the clinical workforce of today and tomorrow. Although in training to become specialists, they also provide much of the daily patient care. Residency training aims to prepare residents to provide a high quality of care. It is essential to assess the patient outcome aspects of residency training, to evaluate the effect or impact of global investments made in training programs. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effects of relevant aspects of residency training on patient outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The literature was searched from December 2004 to February 2011 using MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase and the Education Resources Information Center databases with terms related to residency training and (post) graduate medical education and patient outcomes, including mortality, morbidity, complications, length of stay and patient satisfaction. Included studies evaluated the impact of residency training on patient outcomes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Ninety-seven articles were included from 182 full-text articles of the initial 2,001 hits. All studies were of average or good quality and the majority had an observational study design.Ninety-six studies provided insight into the effect of 'the level of experience of residents' on patient outcomes during residency training. Within these studies, the start of the academic year was not without risk (five out of 19 studies), but individual progression of residents (seven studies) as well as progression through residency training (nine out of 10 studies) had a positive effect on patient outcomes. Compared with faculty, residents' care resulted mostly in similar patient outcomes when dedicated supervision and additional operation time were arranged for (34 out of 43 studies). After new, modified or improved training programs, patient outcomes remained unchanged or improved (16 out of 17 studies). Only one study focused on physicians' prior training site when assessing the quality of patient care. In this study, training programs were ranked by complication rates of their graduates, thus linking patient outcomes back to where physicians were trained.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The majority of studies included in this systematic review drew attention to the fact that patient care appears safe and of equal quality when delivered by residents. A minority of results pointed to some negative patient outcomes from the involvement of residents. Adequate supervision, room for extra operation time, and evaluation of and attention to the individual competence of residents throughout residency training could positively serve patient outcomes. Limited evidence is available on the effect of residency training on later practice. Both qualitative and quantitative research designs are needed to clarify which aspects of residency training best prepare doctors to deliver high quality care.</p

Effect of operating surgeon on outcome of arteriovenous fistula formation.

OBJECTIVE To study whether surgical trainees can perform arteriovenous fistula (AVF) surgery to a standard comparable to consultants. PATIENTS AND METHODS Retrospective study of all vascular access surgery over a three year period at a single centre. The operating surgeon was identified from theatre log books and categorised by grade. Fistula patency was used as the primary outcome measure and was determined from patients' case-notes and from a prospectively collected electronic record of dialysis sessions. Patency was defined as "used for dialysis" if the AVF was used for dialysis for at least 6 consecutive sessions. RESULTS One hundred and eighty six cases were used for analysis. In 60 cases (32%) the operating surgeon was the consultant, in 53 cases (29%) a trainee was supervised by a consultant, in 56 cases (30%) a trainee performed the operation independently and in 17 cases (9%) the grade of the operating surgeon could not be established. Primary and primary assisted patency rates by operating surgeon did not differ significantly (P-values 0.25 and 0.16 respectively). Age of the patient was the only predictor of patency failure in a multivariate model. Grade of operating surgeon (logrank test chi(2)=3.1, p=0.38) and type of fistula (logrank test chi(2)=2.3, p=0.52) were not significantly related to the primary survival of the fistula. CONCLUSIONS This study showed no significant differences in AVF patency rates between trainee and consultant surgeons. Allocation of appropriate cases can result in trainees obtaining similar outcomes as consultants, demonstrating that dialysis access surgery can provide good training opportunities for junior doctors without detriment to patient care

Should patients be on antithrombotic medication for their first arteriovenous fistulae?

PURPOSE: Evidence on the effect of antithrombotic medication on reducing early and late fistula failure is inconclusive. Antithrombotic use carries risks in patients with end-stage renal failure and could increase the risk of needling complications as a result of bleeding. The objectives of this study are to determine the effect of antithrombotic agents on early and late fistula failure and on the risk of interrupted start of cannulation of the fistula. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of two prospectively maintained databases of access operations and dialysis sessions of 671 patients who had their first fistula between 2004 and 2011. Early failure was defined as failure to reach six consecutive dialysis sessions at any time with two needles on the index form of access. Fistula survival was defined as the time from when the fistula was first used to fistula abandonment. RESULTS: Primary failure was similar between patients on antiplatelet (18.8%), anticoagulants (18.4%) or no antithrombotic medication (18.8%; p = 0.998). Antithrombotic medication did not have an effect on AVF survival (p = 0.86). Antithrombotic medication did not increase complicated cannulation rates, defined as the percentage of patients failing to achieve six uninterrupted dialysis sessions from the start (p = 0.929). CONCLUSIONS: Antithrombotic medication had no significant effect on primary failure rate, long-term fistula survival or initial complicated cannulation rates in our study. This suggests that patients already on antithrombotic medication can continue taking them without increasing the risk of interrupted dialysis