The Impact of Duty Hours on Resident Self Reports of Errors

BACKGROUND: Resident duty hour limitations aim, in part, to reduce medical errors. Residents’ perceptions of the impact of duty hours on errors are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine residents’ self-reported contributing factors, frequency, and impact of hours worked on suboptimal care practices and medical errors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SUBJECTS: 164 Internal Medicine Residents at the University of California, San Francisco. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Residents were asked to report the frequency and contributing factors of suboptimal care practices and medical errors, and how duty hours impacted these practices and aspects of resident work-life. One hundred twenty-five residents (76%) responded. The most common suboptimal care practices were working while impaired by fatigue and forgetting to transmit information during sign-out. In multivariable models, residents who felt overwhelmed with work (p = 0.02) and who reported spending >50% of their time in nonphysician tasks (p = 0.002) were more likely to report suboptimal care practices. Residents reported work-stress (a composite of fatigue, excessive workload, distractions, stress, and inadequate time) as the most frequent contributing factor to medical errors. In multivariable models, only engaging in suboptimal practices was associated with self-report of higher risk for medical errors (p < 0.001); working more than 80 hours per week was not associated with suboptimal care or errors. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that administrative load and work stressors are more closely associated with resident reports of medical errors than the number of hours work. Efforts to reduce resident duty hours may also need to address the nature of residents’ work to reduce errors

Relationships of the Location and Content of Rounds to Specialty, Institution, Patient-Census, and Team Size

OBJECTIVE: Existing observational data describing rounds in teaching hospitals are 15 years old, predate duty-hour regulations, are limited to one institution, and do not include pediatrics. We sought to evaluate the effect of medical specialty, institution, patient-census, and team participants upon time at the bedside and education occurring on rounds. METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS: Between December of 2007 and October of 2008 we performed 51 observations at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Seattle Children's Hospital, Stanford University Hospital, and the University of Washington Medical Center of 35 attending physicians. We recorded minutes spent on rounds in three location and seven activity categories, members of the care team, and patient-census. RESULTS: Results presented are means. Pediatric rounds had more participants (8.2 vs. 4.1 physicians, p<.001; 11.9 vs. 2.4 non-physicians, p<.001) who spent more minutes in hallways (96.9 min vs. 35.2 min, p<.001), fewer minutes at the bedside (14.6 vs. 38.2 min, p = .01) than internal medicine rounds. Multivariate regression modeling revealed that minutes at the bedside per patient was negatively associated with pediatrics (-2.77 adjusted bedside minutes; 95% CI -4.61 to -0.93; p<.001) but positively associated with the number of non-physician participants (0.12 adjusted bedside minutes per non physician participant; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17; p = <.001). Education minutes on rounds was positively associated with the presence of an attending physician (2.70 adjusted education minutes; 95% CI 1.27 to 4.12; p<.001) and with one institution (1.39 adjusted education minutes; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.53; p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatricians spent less time at the bedside on rounds than internal medicine physicians due to reasons other than patient-census or the number of participants in rounds. Compared to historical data, internal medicine rounds were spent more at the bedside engaged in patient care and communication, and less upon educational activities

Understanding the Singapore COVID-19 experience: Implications for hospital medicine

10.12788/jhm.3436Journal of Hospital Medicine155281-28