RATIONALE: Little is known about the consequences of intensivists’ work schedules, or intensivist continuity of care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of weekend respite for intensivists, with consequent reduction in continuity of care, on them and their patients. METHODS:In five medical intensive care units (ICUs) in four academic hospitals we performed a prospective, cluster-randomized, alternating trial of two intensivist staffing schedules. Daily coverage by a single intensivist in half-month rotations (continuous schedule) was compared with weekday coverage by a single intensivist, with weekend cross-coverage by colleagues (interrupted schedule). We studied consecutive patients admitted to study units, and the intensivists working in four of the participating units. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary patient outcome was ICU length of stay (LOS);we also assessed hospital LOS and mortality rates. The primary intensivist outcome was physician burnout. Analysis was by multivariable regression. A total of 45 intensivists and 1,900 patients participated in the study. Continuity of care differed between schedules (patients with multiple intensivists = 28% under continuous schedule vs. 62% under interrupted scheduling; P < 0.0001). LOS and mortality were nonsignificantly higher under continuous scheduling (ΔICU LOS 0.36 d, P = 0.20; Δhospital LOS 0.34 d, P = 0.71; ICU mortality, odds ratio = 1.43, P = 0.12; hospital mortality, odds ratio = 1.17,P = 0.41). Intensivists experienced significantly higher burnout, work–home life imbalance, and job distress working under the continuous schedule. CONCLUSIONS: Work schedules where intensivists received weekend breaks were better for the physicians and, despite lower continuity of intensivist care, did not worsen outcomes for medical ICU patients.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: Little is known about the consequences of intensivists’ work schedules, or intensivist continuity of care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of weekend respite for intensivists, with consequent reduction in continuity of care, on them and their patients. METHODS: In five medical intensive care units (ICUs) in four academic hospitals we performed a prospective, cluster-randomized, alternating trial of two intensivist staffing schedules. Daily coverage by a single intensivist in half-month rotations (continuous schedule) was compared with weekday coverage by a single intensivist, with weekend cross-coverage by colleagues (interrupted schedule). We studied consecutive patients admitted to study units, and the intensivists working in four of the participating units. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary patient outcome was ICU length of stay (LOS);we also assessed hospital LOS and mortality rates. The primary intensivist outcome was physician burnout. Analysis was by multivariable regression. A total of 45 intensivists and 1,900 patients participated in the study. Continuity of care differed between schedules (patients with multiple intensivists = 28% under continuous schedule vs. 62% under interrupted scheduling; P < 0.0001). LOS and mortality were nonsignificantly higher under continuous scheduling (ΔICU LOS 0.36 d, P = 0.20; Δhospital LOS 0.34 d, P = 0.71; ICU mortality, odds ratio = 1.43, P = 0.12; hospital mortality, odds ratio = 1.17,P = 0.41). Intensivists experienced significantly higher burnout, work–home life imbalance, and job distress working under the continuous schedule. CONCLUSIONS: Work schedules where intensivists received weekend breaks were better for the physicians and, despite lower continuity of intensivist care, did not worsen outcomes for medical ICU patients.
Authors: Kay Choong See; Ming Yan Zhao; Emiko Nakataki; Kaweesak Chittawatanarat; Wen-Feng Fang; Mohammad Omar Faruq; Bambang Wahjuprajitno; Yaseen M Arabi; Wai Tat Wong; Jigeeshu V Divatia; Jose Emmanuel Palo; Babu Raja Shrestha; Khalid M K Nafees; Nguyen Gia Binh; Hussain Nasser Al Rahma; Khamsay Detleuxay; Venetia Ong; Jason Phua Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Judith Gedney Baggs; Madeline H Schmitt; Thomas J Prendergast; Sally A Norton; Craig R Sellers; Jill R Quinn; Nancy Press Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Saul Blecker; Daniel Shine; Naeun Park; Keith Goldfeld; R Scott Braithwaite; Martha J Radford; Marc N Gourevitch Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Michael O Harhay; Sarah J Ratcliffe; Dylan S Small; Leah H Suttner; Michael J Crowther; Scott D Halpern Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Derek Blevins; Brandy F Henry; Minhee Sung; E Jennifer Edelman; Anne C Black; Michael Dawes; Todd Molfenter; Holly Hagle; Karen Drexler; Kathryn Cates-Wessel; Frances R Levin Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 3.084