Patient safety, resident well-being and continuity of care with different resident duty schedules in the intensive care unit: a randomized trial

• Published in: Canadian Medical Association journal (CMAJ) 2015-03, Vol.187 (5), p.321-329
• Main Authors: Parshuram, Christopher S, Amaral, Andre C K B, Ferguson, Niall D, Baker, G Ross, Etchells, Edward E, Flintoft, Virginia, Granton, John, Lingard, Lorelei, Kirpalani, Haresh, Mehta, Sangeeta, Moldofsky, Harvey, Scales, Damon C, Stewart, Thomas E, Willan, Andrew R, Friedrich, Jan O
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Attitude of Health Personnel; Care and treatment; Continuity of Patient Care - organization & administration; Continuity of Patient Care - statistics & numerical data; Fatigue; Female; Humans; Intensive care; Intensive Care Units - organization & administration; Intensive Care Units - statistics & numerical data; Internship and Residency - organization & administration; Male; Medical appointments and schedules; Medical Errors - prevention & control; Medical Errors - statistics & numerical data; Middle Aged; Ontario; Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care); Patient safety; Patient Safety - statistics & numerical data; Patients; Personnel Staffing and Scheduling - organization & administration; Physicians - psychology; Studies; Work Schedule Tolerance; Working hours; Workload
• ISSN: 0820-3946; 1488-2329
• DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.140752

Shorter resident duty periods are increasingly mandated to improve patient safety and physician well-being. However, increases in continuity-related errors may counteract the purported benefits of reducing fatigue. We evaluated the effects of 3 resident schedules in the intensive care unit (ICU) on patient safety, resident well-being and continuity of care. Residents in 2 university-affiliated ICUs were randomly assigned (in 2-month rotation-blocks from January to June 2009) to in-house overnight schedules of 24, 16 or 12 hours. The primary patient outcome was adverse events. The primary resident outcome was sleepiness, measured by the 7-point Stanford Sleepiness Scale. Secondary outcomes were patient deaths, preventable adverse events, and residents' physical symptoms and burnout. Continuity of care and perceptions of ICU staff were also assessed. We evaluated 47 (96%) of 49 residents, all 971 admissions, 5894 patient-days and 452 staff surveys. We found no effect of schedule (24-, 16- or 12-h shifts) on adverse events (81.3, 76.3 and 78.2 events per 1000 patient-days, respectively; p = 0.7) or on residents' sleepiness in the daytime (mean rating 2.33, 2.61 and 2.30, respectively; p = 0.3) or at night (mean rating 3.06, 2.73 and 2.42, respectively; p = 0.2). Seven of 8 preventable adverse events occurred with the 12-hour schedule (p = 0.1). Mortality rates were similar for the 3 schedules. Residents' somatic symptoms were more severe and more frequent with the 24-hour schedule (p = 0.04); however, burnout was similar across the groups. ICU staff rated residents' knowledge and decision-making worst with the 16-hour schedule. Our findings do not support the purported advantages of shorter duty schedules. They also highlight the trade-offs between residents' symptoms and multiple secondary measures of patient safety. Further delineation of this emerging signal is required before widespread system change. ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT00679809.