Saxena Akash D, George Charles F P
University of Western Ontario, Division of Respirology, London, Canada.
Sleep. 2005 Nov;28(11):1386-91. doi: 10.1093/sleep/28.11.1386.
To compare vigilance and performance among internal medicine residents doing in-house call versus residents not doing in-house call.
Prospective study of resident cohorts with repeated testing.
University Teaching Hospital.
Internal medicine residents doing in-house call and residents not doing in-house call (pathology, endocrinology) (controls).
Subjective sleepiness scores (daily Stanford Sleepiness Scale and Epworth Sleepiness Scale at start and end of the test period), actigraphy, and daily sleep logs as well as regular psychomotor vigilance testing using a Palm version (Walter Reed Army Institute of Research) of the Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT). Subjects were enrolled for a period of 28 to 32 days, which included 4 to 6 on-call nights for the internal medicine residents. Controls took call from home. Participants were compensated for their time.
Twenty residents were evaluated, 13 internal medicine and 7 controls. Overall median reaction time was slower in the internal medicine residents (264.7 +/- 102.9 vs 239.2 +/- 26.1 milliseconds; P < .001). Internal medicine residents showed no difference in reaction time postcall versus other periods (269.9 +/- 131.2 vs 263.6 +/- 95.6; P = .65). Actigraphic sleep time was shorter during on-call than noncall nights and in internal medicine residents as compared with controls (287.48 +/- 143.8 vs 453.49 +/- 178.5 and 476.08 +/- 71.9 minutes; P < .001). Internal medicine residents had significantly greater major and minor reaction-time lapses compared with controls (1.26 +/- 3.4 vs 0.53 +/- 1.1 & 2.4 +/- 7.4 vs 0.45 +/- 1.0; P < .001). They reported increased sleepiness on postcall days compared with the start of their call (Stanford Sleepiness Scale: 3.26 +/- 1.2 vs 2.22 +/- 0.8; P < .001) but had scores similar to those of controls by their next call (2.22 +/- 0.8 vs 2.07 +/- 0.8; P = .13).
Internal medicine residents have impaired reaction time and reduced vigilance compared with controls. Despite subjective improvements in sleepiness postcall, there was no change in their objective performance across the study period, suggesting no recovery. Internal medicine residents did not get extra sleep on postcall nights in an attempt to recover their lost sleep time. Implications for residents' well-being and patient care remain unclear.
比较进行院内值班的内科住院医师与不进行院内值班的住院医师之间的警觉性和工作表现。
对住院医师队列进行重复测试的前瞻性研究。
大学教学医院。
进行院内值班的内科住院医师以及不进行院内值班的住院医师(病理学、内分泌学专业)(对照组)。
主观嗜睡评分(测试期开始和结束时的每日斯坦福嗜睡量表和爱泼华嗜睡量表)、活动记录仪、每日睡眠日志,以及使用美国陆军军医大学研发的掌上型心理运动警觉性测试(PVT)对心理运动警觉性进行定期测试。研究对象参与为期28至32天的研究,其中内科住院医师有4至6个值夜班的晚上。对照组在家值班。参与者的时间投入获得了报酬。
共评估了20名住院医师,其中13名内科住院医师和7名对照组人员。内科住院医师的总体中位反应时间较慢(264.7±102.9毫秒 vs 239.2±26.1毫秒;P < 0.001)。内科住院医师在值夜班后与其他时间段的反应时间没有差异(269.9±131.2 vs 263.6±95.6;P = 0.65)。与非值夜班相比,值夜班期间的活动记录仪记录的睡眠时间较短,且内科住院医师与对照组相比睡眠时间也较短(287.48±143.8分钟 vs 453.49±178.5分钟和476.08±71.9分钟;P < 0.001)。与对照组相比,内科住院医师的主要和次要反应时间失误明显更多(1.26±3.4 vs 0.53±1.1以及2.4±7.4 vs 0.45±1.0;P < 0.001)。他们报告说,值夜班后当天的嗜睡感比开始值夜班时有所增加(斯坦福嗜睡量表:3.26±1.2 vs 2.22±0.8;P < 0.001),但在下一次值夜班时其评分与对照组相似(2.22±0.8 vs 2.07±0.8;P = 0.13)。
与对照组相比,内科住院医师的反应时间受损,警觉性降低。尽管值夜班后嗜睡感在主观上有所改善,但在整个研究期间他们的客观表现没有变化,表明没有恢复。内科住院医师在值夜班后的晚上没有额外补觉以弥补失去的睡眠时间。这对住院医师的健康和患者护理的影响仍不明确。