iCOMPARE, what value does it add to resident duty-hour discussions?

Discussions regarding resident duty-hour restrictions have been ongoing and heated. One influential argument for restrictions has been patient safety. Two trials, FIRST and iCOMPARE, were performed to investigate this relationship with surgical and medicine training, respectively. As the authors are approaching this discussion from a medicine-based perspective, iCOMPARE will serve as the primary basis of our discussion. Results from the iCOMPARE trial comparing flexible (28-hour shifts allowed) to the original 2011 ACGME shift requirements (maximum 16 hours) were recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. This non-inferiority trial used 30-day post-hospitalization mortality as its primary endpoint. Results met qualifications for non-inferiority, and ACGME policy was changed to allow for 28-hour shifts for medicine residents. iCOMPARE results were highly lauded and used as primary justification for extending resident duty hours. Despite this sweeping impact, few have critically evaluated what this study actually adds to the literature. Herein, we argue that serious questions regarding trial design are apparent. Most importantly, the non-inferiority margins chosen were large, and represent an ambiguous marker of resident performance. Additionally, we question the lack of both patient consenting and direct patient-reported or patient-centered outcomes within the hospital stay. As more discussion arises in the medical literature surrounding patient-reported outcomes and shared decision making, we argue that the results of iCOMPARE disregarded the patient perspective or meaningful patient outcomes in an attempt to maintain status quo. Lastly, we discuss how iCOMPARE missed the broader question of actual duty-hour restrictions, and some practical methods already in practice at some programs, which may more directly balance resident work hours with patient care and resident learning.

Resident duty hours: Families’ knowledge and perceptions in the paediatric intensive care unit

Background and Objectives: Resident duty hours remain a controversial topic in the literature. Competing interests include patient safety, resident education, and resident well-being. No studies, however, have sought family members’ perspectives on duty hours in the paediatric context. This study aimed to explore family members’ knowledge of trainee duty hours, and their perspectives on the balance between shift duration and hand-off frequency. Methods: We surveyed family members of patients admitted ≥ 24 hours in the paediatric intensive care unit at an academic center. We simultaneously collected daily logs of hours worked by trainees. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey responses and trainee duty hours. Results: One-hundred and one family members responded (75%). Respondents demonstrated knowledge of trainees working long duty hours but reported lower averages than the trainee logs (55 versus 66 hours per week and 16 versus 24 hours per shift). Elements related to both potential trainee fatigue and hand-offs raised concern in more than half of respondents. When asked to choose between a familiar trainee working a prolonged shift, or an unfamiliar trainee at the start of their shift, respondents were divided (52% versus 48%, respectively). Conclusions: Family members of critically ill paediatric patients are aware that trainees provide patient care while working long duty hours with minimal sleep. Despite this awareness, long shifts retain value with some families, possibly due to continuity. Changes to duty hours and hand-off frequency may pose an unrealized harm on family-centered care, as well as patient–provider relationships, and further study is warranted.