BACKGROUND: Duty hour restrictions limit shift length to 16 hours during the 1(st) post-graduate year. Although many programs utilize a 16-hour "long call" admitting shift on inpatient services, compliance with the 16-hour shift length and factors responsible for extended shifts have not been well examined. OBJECTIVE: To identify the incidence of and operational factors associated with extended long call shifts and residents' perceptions of the safety and educational value of the 16-hour long call shift in a large internal medicine residency program. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND MAIN MEASURES: Between August and December of 2010, residents were sent an electronic survey immediately following 16-hour long call shifts, assessing departure time and shift characteristics. We used logistic regression to identify independent predictors of extended shifts. In mid-December, all residents received a second survey to assess perceptions of the long call admitting model. KEY RESULTS: Two-hundred and thirty surveys were completed (95 %). Overall, 92 of 230 (40 %) shifts included ≥ 1 team member exceeding the 16-hour limit. Factors independently associated with extended shifts per 3-member team were 3-4 patients (adjusted OR 5.2, 95 % CI 1.9-14.3) and>4 patients (OR 10.6, 95 % CI 3.3-34.6) admitted within 6 hours of scheduled departure and>6 total admissions (adjusted OR 2.9, 95 % CI 1.05-8.3). Seventy-nine of 96 (82 %) residents completed the perceptions survey. Residents believed, on average, teams could admit 4.5 patients after 5 pm and 7 patients during long call shifts to ensure compliance. Regarding the long call shift, 73 % agreed it allows for safe patient care, 60 % disagreed/were neutral about working too many hours, and 53 % rated the educational value in the top 33 % of a 9-point scale. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with the 16-hour long call shift is sensitive to total workload and workload timing factors. Knowledge of such factors should guide systems redesign aimed at achieving compliance while ensuring patient care and educational opportunities.
BACKGROUND: Duty hour restrictions limit shift length to 16 hours during the 1(st) post-graduate year. Although many programs utilize a 16-hour "long call" admitting shift on inpatient services, compliance with the 16-hour shift length and factors responsible for extended shifts have not been well examined. OBJECTIVE: To identify the incidence of and operational factors associated with extended long call shifts and residents' perceptions of the safety and educational value of the 16-hour long call shift in a large internal medicine residency program. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND MAIN MEASURES: Between August and December of 2010, residents were sent an electronic survey immediately following 16-hour long call shifts, assessing departure time and shift characteristics. We used logistic regression to identify independent predictors of extended shifts. In mid-December, all residents received a second survey to assess perceptions of the long call admitting model. KEY RESULTS: Two-hundred and thirty surveys were completed (95 %). Overall, 92 of 230 (40 %) shifts included ≥ 1 team member exceeding the 16-hour limit. Factors independently associated with extended shifts per 3-member team were 3-4 patients (adjusted OR 5.2, 95 % CI 1.9-14.3) and>4 patients (OR 10.6, 95 % CI 3.3-34.6) admitted within 6 hours of scheduled departure and>6 total admissions (adjusted OR 2.9, 95 % CI 1.05-8.3). Seventy-nine of 96 (82 %) residents completed the perceptions survey. Residents believed, on average, teams could admit 4.5 patients after 5 pm and 7 patients during long call shifts to ensure compliance. Regarding the long call shift, 73 % agreed it allows for safe patient care, 60 % disagreed/were neutral about working too many hours, and 53 % rated the educational value in the top 33 % of a 9-point scale. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with the 16-hour long call shift is sensitive to total workload and workload timing factors. Knowledge of such factors should guide systems redesign aimed at achieving compliance while ensuring patient care and educational opportunities.
Authors: Stephanie Tessing; Andria Amendt; Jeanine Jennings; Joanna Thomson; Katherine A Auger; Javier A Gonzalez Del Rey Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2009-12
Authors: Christopher P McCoy; Andrew J Halvorsen; Conor G Loftus; Furman S McDonald; Amy S Oxentenko Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Ryan M Antiel; Scott M Thompson; Frederic W Hafferty; Katherine M James; Jon C Tilburt; Michael P Bannon; Philip R Fischer; David R Farley; Darcy A Reed Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Teryl K Nuckols; Jay Bhattacharya; Dianne Miller Wolman; Cheryl Ulmer; José J Escarce Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Darcy A Reed; Rachel B Levine; Redonda G Miller; Bimal H Ashar; Eric B Bass; Tasha N Rice; Joseph Cofrancesco Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-07-23
Authors: Jed D Gonzalo; Ethan F Kuperman; Cynthia H Chuang; Erik Lehman; Frendy Glasser; Thomas Abendroth Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 5.128