Department of Surgery, Center for Surgery and Health Economics, The University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
The Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Ann Surg. 2020 Apr;271(4):599-605. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003304.
The aim of the study was to address the controversy surrounding the effects of duty hour reform on new surgeon performance, we analyzed patients treated by new surgeons following the transition to independent practice.
In 2003, duty hour reform affected all US surgical training programs. Its impact on the performance of new surgeons remains unstudied.
We studied 30-day mortality among 1,483,074 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing general and orthopedic operations between 1999 and 2003 ("traditional" era) and 2009 and 2013 ("modern" era). The operations were performed by 2762 new surgeons trained before the reform, 2119 new surgeons trained following reform and 15,041 experienced surgeons. We used a difference-in-differences analysis comparing outcomes in matched patients treated by new versus experienced surgeons within each era, controlling for the hospital, operation, and patient risk factors.
Traditional era odds of 30-day mortality among matched patients treated by new versus experienced surgeons were significantly elevated [odds ratio (OR) 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.05, 1.22), P < 0.001). The modern era elevated odds of mortality were not significant [OR 1.06; 95% CI (0.97-1.16), P = 0.239]. Relative performance of new and experienced surgeons with respect to 30-day mortality did not appear to change from the traditional era to the modern era [OR 0.93; 95% CI (0.83-1.05), P = 0.233]. There were statistically significant adverse changes over time in relative performance to experienced surgeons in prolonged length of stay [OR 1.08; 95% CI (1.02-1.15), P = 0.015], anesthesia time [9 min; 95% CI (8-10), P < 0.001], and costs [255USD; 95% CI (2-508), P = 0.049].
Duty hour reform showed no significant effect on 30-day mortality achieved by new surgeons compared to their more experienced colleagues. Patients of new surgeons, however, trained after duty hour reform displayed some increases in the resources needed for their care.
本研究旨在解决有关工作时间改革对新外科医生绩效影响的争议,我们分析了新外科医生在过渡到独立执业后治疗的患者。
2003 年,工作时间改革影响了所有美国外科培训项目。其对新外科医生绩效的影响仍未得到研究。
我们研究了 1999 年至 2003 年(“传统”时代)和 2009 年至 2013 年(“现代”时代)期间接受普通和骨科手术的 1483074 名医疗保险受益人的 30 天死亡率。这些手术由 2762 名在改革前接受培训的新外科医生、2119 名在改革后接受培训的新外科医生和 15041 名经验丰富的外科医生进行。我们使用差异分析比较了每个时代中由新外科医生和经验丰富的外科医生治疗的匹配患者的结果,控制了医院、手术和患者风险因素。
传统时代,与经验丰富的外科医生相比,新外科医生治疗的匹配患者的 30 天死亡率的几率显著升高[比值比(OR)1.13;95%置信区间(CI)(1.05,1.22),P<0.001]。现代时代,死亡率升高的几率没有统计学意义[OR 1.06;95% CI(0.97-1.16),P=0.239]。新外科医生和经验丰富的外科医生在 30 天死亡率方面的相对表现似乎并没有从传统时代到现代时代发生变化[OR 0.93;95% CI(0.83-1.05),P=0.233]。随着时间的推移,在与经验丰富的外科医生相比的相对表现方面,在延长住院时间[OR 1.08;95% CI(1.02-1.15),P=0.015]、麻醉时间[9 分钟;95% CI(8-10),P<0.001]和费用[255 美元;95% CI(2-508),P=0.049]方面都出现了统计学上的不利变化。
与经验丰富的同事相比,工作时间改革对新外科医生的 30 天死亡率没有显著影响。然而,在工作时间改革后接受培训的新外科医生的患者在他们的护理所需的资源方面显示出了一些增加。