Impact of resident duty hour limits on safety in the intensive care unit: a national survey of pediatric and neonatal intensivists.

OBJECTIVE: Resident duty-hour regulations potentially shift the workload from resident to attending physicians. We sought to understand how current or future regulatory changes might impact safety in academic pediatric and neonatal intensive care units. DESIGN: Web-based survey. SETTING: U.S. academic pediatric and neonatal intensive care units. SUBJECTS: Attending pediatric and neonatal intensivists. INTERVENTIONS: We evaluated perceptions on four intensive care unit safety-related risk measures potentially affected by current duty-hour regulations: 1) attending physician and resident fatigue; 2) attending physician workload; 3) errors (self-reported rates by attending physicians or perceived resident error rates); and 4) safety culture. We also evaluated perceptions of how these risks would change with further duty-hour restrictions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We administered our survey between February and April 2010 to 688 eligible physicians, of whom 360 (52.3%) responded. Most believed that resident error rates were unchanged or worse (91.9%) and safety culture was unchanged or worse (84.4%) with current duty-hour regulations. Of respondents, 61.9% believed their own work-hours providing direct patient care increased and 55.8% believed they were more fatigued while providing direct patient care. Most (85.3%) perceived no increase in their own error rates currently, but in the scenario of further reduction in resident duty-hours, over half (53.3%) believed that safety culture would worsen and a significant proportion (40.3%) believed that their own error rates would increase. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric intensivists do not perceive improved patient safety from current resident duty-hour restrictions. Policies to further restrict resident duty-hours should consider unintended consequences of worsening certain aspects of intensive care unit safety.

Improving benchmarking by using an explicit framework for the development of composite indicators: an example using pediatric quality of care.

BACKGROUND: The measurement of healthcare provider performance is becoming more widespread. Physicians have been guarded about performance measurement, in part because the methodology for comparative measurement of care quality is underdeveloped. Comprehensive quality improvement will require comprehensive measurement, implying the aggregation of multiple quality metrics into composite indicators. OBJECTIVE: To present a conceptual framework to develop comprehensive, robust, and transparent composite indicators of pediatric care quality, and to highlight aspects specific to quality measurement in children. METHODS: We reviewed the scientific literature on composite indicator development, health systems, and quality measurement in the pediatric healthcare setting. Frameworks were selected for explicitness and applicability to a hospital-based measurement system. RESULTS: We synthesized various frameworks into a comprehensive model for the development of composite indicators of quality of care. Among its key premises, the model proposes identifying structural, process, and outcome metrics for each of the Institute of Medicine's six domains of quality (safety, effectiveness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, timeliness, and equity) and presents a step-by-step framework for embedding the quality of care measurement model into composite indicator development. CONCLUSIONS: The framework presented offers researchers an explicit path to composite indicator development. Without a scientifically robust and comprehensive approach to measurement of the quality of healthcare, performance measurement will ultimately fail to achieve its quality improvement goals.