Search

BackgroundThe effects on patient safety of eliminating extended-duration work shifts for resident physicians remain controversial.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, crossover trial comparing two schedules for pediatric resident physicians during their intensive care unit (ICU) rotations: extended-duration work schedules that included shifts of 24 hours or more (control schedules) and schedules that eliminated extended shifts and cycled resident physicians through day and night shifts of 16 hours or less (intervention schedules). The primary outcome was serious medical errors made by resident physicians, assessed by intensive surveillance, including direct observation and chart review.ResultsThe characteristics of ICU patients during the two work schedules were similar, but resident physician workload, described as the mean (±SD) number of ICU patients per resident physician, was higher during the intervention schedules than during the control schedules (8.8±2.8 vs. 6.7±2.2). Resident physicians made more serious errors during the intervention schedules than during the control schedules (97.1 vs. 79.0 per 1000 patient-days; relative risk, 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 1.72; P

IntroductionWhile the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education limited first year resident-physicians to 16 consecutive work hours from 2011 to 2017, resident-physicians in their second year or higher were permitted to work up to 28 h consecutively. This paper describes the Randomized Order Safety Trial Evaluating Resident-physician Schedules (ROSTERS) study, a clustered-randomized crossover clinical trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of eliminating traditional shifts of 24 h or longer for second year or higher resident-physicians in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs).MethodsROSTERS was a multi-center non-blinded trial in 6 PICUs at US academic medical centers. The primary aim was to compare patient safety between the extended duration work roster (EDWR), which included shifts ≥24 h, and a rapidly cycling work roster (RCWR), where shifts were limited to a maximum of 16 h. Information on potential medical errors was gathered and used for classification by centrally trained physician reviewers who were blinded to the study arm. Secondary aims were to assess the relationship of the study arm to resident-physician sleep duration, work hours and neurobehavioral performance.ResultsThe study involved 6577 patients with a total of 38,821 patient days (n = 18,749 EDWR, n = 20,072 RCWR). There were 413 resident-physician rotations included in the study (n = 203 EDWR, n = 210 RCWR). Resident-physician questionnaire data were over 95% complete.ConclusionsResults from data collected in the ROSTERS study will be evaluated for the impact of resident-physician schedule roster on patient safety outcomes in PICUs, and will allow for examination of a number of secondary outcome measures. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02134847.

Background: Data on the use of Control‐IQ, the latest FDA‐approved automated insulin delivery (AID) system for people with T1D 6 years of age or older is still scarce, particularly regarding nonglycemic outcomes. Children with T1D and their parents are at higher risk for sleep disturbances. This study assesses sleep, psycho‐behavioral and glycemic outcomes of AID compared to sensor‐augmented pump therapy (SAP) therapy in young children with T1D and their parents. Methods: Thirteen parents and their young children (ages 7–10) on insulin pump therapy were enrolled. Children completed an initial 4‐week study with SAP using their own pump and a study CGM followed by a 4‐week phase of AID. Sleep outcomes for parents and children were evaluated through actigraphy watches. Several questionnaires were administered at baseline and at the end of each study phase. CGM data were used to assess glycemic outcomes. Results: Actigraphy data did not show any significant change from SAP to AID, except a reduction of number of parental awakenings during the night (p = 0.036). Parents reported statistically significant improvements in Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index total score (p = 0.009), Hypoglycemia Fear Survey total score (p = 0.011), diabetes‐related distress (p = 0.032), and depression (p = 0.023). While on AID, time in range (70–180 mg/dL) significantly increased compared to SAP (p < 0.001), accompanied by a reduction in hyperglycemia (p = 0.001). Conclusions: These results suggest that use of AID has a positive impact on glycemic outcomes in young children as well as sleep and diabetes‐specific quality of life outcomes in their parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]