Design and recruitment of the randomized order safety trial evaluating resident-physician schedules (ROSTERS) study.

INTRODUCTION: While 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). METHODS: ROSTERS 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: Results 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.

Ultrasonography versus computed tomography for suspected nephrolithiasis.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus about whether the initial imaging method for patients with suspected nephrolithiasis should be computed tomography (CT) or ultrasonography. METHODS: In this multicenter, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness trial, we randomly assigned patients 18 to 76 years of age who presented to the emergency department with suspected nephrolithiasis to undergo initial diagnostic ultrasonography performed by an emergency physician (point-of-care ultrasonography), ultrasonography performed by a radiologist (radiology ultrasonography), or abdominal CT. Subsequent management, including additional imaging, was at the discretion of the physician. We compared the three groups with respect to the 30-day incidence of high-risk diagnoses with complications that could be related to missed or delayed diagnosis and the 6-month cumulative radiation exposure. Secondary outcomes were serious adverse events, related serious adverse events (deemed attributable to study participation), pain (assessed on an 11-point visual-analogue scale, with higher scores indicating more severe pain), return emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 2759 patients underwent randomization: 908 to point-of-care ultrasonography, 893 to radiology ultrasonography, and 958 to CT. The incidence of high-risk diagnoses with complications in the first 30 days was low (0.4%) and did not vary according to imaging method. The mean 6-month cumulative radiation exposure was significantly lower in the ultrasonography groups than in the CT group (P<0.001). Serious adverse events occurred in 12.4% of the patients assigned to point-of-care ultrasonography, 10.8% of those assigned to radiology ultrasonography, and 11.2% of those assigned to CT (P=0.50). Related adverse events were infrequent (incidence, 0.4%) and similar across groups. By 7 days, the average pain score was 2.0 in each group (P=0.84). Return emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Initial ultrasonography was associated with lower cumulative radiation exposure than initial CT, without significant differences in high-risk diagnoses with complications, serious adverse events, pain scores, return emergency department visits, or hospitalizations. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.).

Study of Tomography Of Nephrolithiasis Evaluation (STONE): methodology, approach and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Urolithiasis (kidney stones) is a common reason for Emergency Department (ED) visits, accounting for nearly 1% of all visits in the United States. Computed tomography (CT) has become the most common imaging test for these patients but there are few comparative effectiveness data to support its use in comparison to ultrasound. This paper describes the rationale and methods of STONE (Study of Tomography Of Nephrolithiasis Evaluation), a pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial comparing different imaging strategies for patients with suspected urolithiasis. METHODS: STONE is a multi-center, non-blinded pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial of patients between ages 18 and 75 with suspected nephrolithiasis seen in an ED setting. Patients were randomized to one of three initial imaging examinations: point-of-care ultrasound, ultrasound performed by a radiologist or CT. Participants then received diagnosis and treatment per usual care. The primary aim is to compare the rate of severe SAEs (Serious Adverse Events) between the three arms. In addition, a broad range of secondary outcomes was assessed at baseline and regularly for six months post-baseline using phone, email and mail questionnaires. RESULTS: Excluding 17 patients who withdrew after randomization, a total of 2759 patients were randomized and completed a baseline questionnaire (n=908, 893 and 958 in the point-of-care ultrasound, radiology ultrasound and radiology CT arms, respectively). Follow-up is complete, and full or partial outcomes were assessed on over 90% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: The detailed methodology of STONE will provide a roadmap for comparative effectiveness studies of diagnostic imaging conducted in an ED setting.