Center for Surgery and Healthcare Economics, Department of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
JAMA Surg. 2018 May 1;153(5):418-425. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.5449.
Important metrics of residency program success include the clinical outcomes achieved by trainees after transitioning to practice. Previous studies have shown significant differences in reported training experiences of general surgery residents at nonuniversity-based residency (NUBR) and university-based residency (UBR) programs.
To examine the differences in practice patterns and clinical outcomes between surgeons trained in NUBR and those trained in UBR programs.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This observational cohort study linked the claims data of patients who underwent general surgery procedures in New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013, to demographic and training information of surgeons in the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Patients who underwent a qualifying procedure were grouped by surgeon. Practice pattern analysis was performed on 3638 surgeons and 1 237 621 patients, representing 214 residency programs. Clinical outcomes analysis was performed on 2301 surgeons and 312 584 patients. Data analysis was conducted from February 1, 2017, to July 31, 2017.
NUBR or UBR training status.
Inpatient mortality, complications, and prolonged length of stay.
No significant differences were observed between the NUBR-trained surgeons and UBR-trained surgeons in age (mean, 53.3 years vs 53.7 years), sex (female, 18.2% vs 16.9%), or years of clinical experience (mean, 16.5 years vs 16.5 years). Overall, NUBR-trained surgeons compared with UBR-trained surgeons performed more procedures (median interquartile range [IQR], 328 [93-661] vs 164 [49-444]; P < .001) and performed a greater proportion of procedures in the outpatient setting (risk difference, 6.5; 95% CI, 6.4 to 6.7; P < .001). Before matching, the mean proportion of patients with documented inpatient mortality was lower for NUBR-trained surgeons than for UBR-trained surgeons (risk difference, -1.01; 95% CI, -1.41 to -0.61; P < .001). The mean proportion of patients with complications (risk difference, -3.17%; 95% CI, -4.21 to -2.13; P < .001) and prolonged length of stay (risk difference, -1.89%; 95% CI, -2.79 to -0.98; P < .001) was also lower for NUBR-trained surgeons. After matching, no significant differences in patient mortality, complications, and prolonged length of stay were found between NUBR- and UBR-trained surgeons.
Surgeons trained in NUBR and UBR programs have distinct practice patterns. After controlling for patient, procedure, and hospital factors, no differences were observed in the inpatient outcomes between the 2 groups.
重要性:住院医师项目成功的重要指标包括培训生在过渡到实践后取得的临床结果。先前的研究表明,非大学附属医院(NUBR)和大学附属医院(UBR)项目的普通外科住院医师在报告的培训经历方面存在显著差异。
目的:研究 NUBR 和 UBR 培训项目培训的外科医生的实践模式和临床结果的差异。
设计、设置和参与者:本观察性队列研究将 2012 年 1 月 1 日至 2013 年 12 月 31 日期间在纽约、佛罗里达和宾夕法尼亚州接受普通外科手术的患者的索赔数据与美国医学协会医师主文件中的外科医生的人口统计学和培训信息相关联。接受合格手术的患者按外科医生分组。对 3638 名外科医生和 1237621 名患者(代表 214 个住院医师项目)进行了实践模式分析。对 2301 名外科医生和 312584 名患者进行了临床结果分析。数据分析于 2017 年 2 月 1 日至 7 月 31 日进行。
暴露:NUBR 或 UBR 培训状况。
主要结果和测量:住院死亡率、并发症和住院时间延长。
结果:NUBR 培训的外科医生和 UBR 培训的外科医生在年龄(平均,53.3 岁与 53.7 岁)、性别(女性,18.2%与 16.9%)或临床经验年限(平均,16.5 年与 16.5 年)方面无显著差异。总体而言,与 UBR 培训的外科医生相比,NUBR 培训的外科医生进行了更多的手术(中位数四分位距 [IQR],328 [93-661] 与 164 [49-444];P < .001),并且更多地在门诊环境中进行手术(风险差异,6.5;95%CI,6.4 至 6.7;P < .001)。在匹配之前,NUBR 培训的外科医生记录的住院死亡率比例低于 UBR 培训的外科医生(风险差异,-1.01;95%CI,-1.41 至-0.61;P < .001)。NUBR 培训的外科医生的并发症发生率(风险差异,-3.17%;95%CI,-4.21 至-2.13;P < .001)和住院时间延长(风险差异,-1.89%;95%CI,-2.79 至-0.98;P < .001)的比例也较低。匹配后,NUBR 和 UBR 培训的外科医生在患者死亡率、并发症和住院时间延长方面无显著差异。
结论和相关性:在 NUBR 和 UBR 项目中接受培训的外科医生有不同的实践模式。在控制患者、手术和医院因素后,两组之间的住院结果没有差异。