Did the 2011 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident work hour reforms affect patient outcomes?
Resident work hour reforms were proposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to reduce resident fatigue (and thus potentially reduce the risk of medical errors), but implementation of the work hour changes also led to concerns over patient safety because of increased handoffs in care. This study shows that work hour reforms had no impact, either positive or negative, on the important patient outcomes of mortality and readmission rates. Other outcomes such as length of stay and number of intensive care unit transfers may need to be examined in future studies to detect more subtle differences. (LOE = 2b)
Study design: Cohort (retrospective)
Funding source: Government
Setting: Inpatient (any location)
In 2011, the ACGME instituted work hour reforms for residents that reduced the work hour limit from 30 consecutive hours to 16 hours for first-year residents and 24 hours for all other residents. Investigators in this study evaluated the effect of the 2011 ACGME reforms on 30-day all-location mortality and 30-day all-cause readmissions. Patients included in the study were Medicare patients who were admitted to acute care US hospitals from 2009 to 2012 with acute myocardial infarction, stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, or congestive heart failure, or those admitted for general, orthopedic, or vascular surgery. Hospitals were classified by their level of teaching intensity using a resident-to-bed ratio defined as the number of residents divided by the number of staffed beds.
In an analysis that adjusted for demographics, co-morbidities, and the presence of surgical complications, the implementation of work hour reforms did not affect 30-day mortality or readmissions in more-intensive teaching hospitals relative to less-intensive teaching hospitals during the postreform year as compared with 2 years before the reform. Multiple factors beyond the implementation of work hour reforms, may have contributed to this lack of effect. First, adherence to the new reforms by residency programs in the first year is unclear. Second, concurrent initiatives to improve patient outcomes during this time may have affected all hospitals, teaching and nonteaching. Finally, the authors suggest that the greater emphasis on resident supervision with the new reforms may have counterbalanced any negative effects of increased resident handoffs.
Dr. Kulkarni is an assistant professor of hospital medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.