Impact of ACGME Duty Hour Rules on Prolonged Length of Stay Among Medicare and VA Patients
description
Transcript of Impact of ACGME Duty Hour Rules on Prolonged Length of Stay Among Medicare and VA Patients
Impact of ACGME Duty Hour Rules on Prolonged Length of Stay
Among Medicare and VA Patients
Jeffrey H. Silber, MD, PhDProfessor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and
Critical Care, and Health Care Systems The University of Pennsylvania School of
Medicine The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
The Wharton School
AcknowledgmentsKevin G. Volpp, MD, PhD Paul R. Rosenbaum, PhD
Amy K. Rosen, PhDPatrick S. Romano, MDKamal M.F. Itani, MD
Liyi Cen, MSLanyu Mi, MS
Michael J. Halenar, BAOrit Even-Shoshan, MS
Jeffrey H. Silber, M.D., PhD
The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine; The Wharton School, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia,
The University of California, Davis, and Boston University; The U.S.Veterans Administration Hospitals in
Philadelphia and Boston.Funding: NHLBI (R01 HL082637) and VA (IIR 04-202)
Motivation
• In 2003 the rules governing work hours for residents were changed on a national level
• In Previous work [JAMA 2007] we have reported on the influence of duty hour reform on mortality—finding little effect--no clear evidence of harm
• We now report on Prolonged Length of Stay (PLOS), a non-lethal outcome that may be associated with the change in resident work hour regulations
Overview• We wished to utilize a measure that would
reflect subtle problems that may occur from the change in resident work hour rules.
• Prolonged LOS (PLOS) may reflect subtle complications and inefficiencies in care that prolong stay
• These problems could potentially be a reflection of the change in resident duty hour regulations because: – Increased handoffs may increase errors in care
leading to complications– Increased handoffs may increase inefficiencies in the
early discharge of uncomplicated patients– More rested residents may increase efficiency and
prevent errors that may lead to prolonged stays
Defining Prolonged LOS (PLOS)
• PLOS was first introduced by Silber and Rosenbaum et al. in HSR 1999
• PLOS is based on the concept that for most admissions (conditions and procedures) there is a point in the hospitalization when “the longer you have stayed, the longer you will stay” signifying that some problem has occurred
Prolongation Point
• We can divide a hospital stay into two parts:
Length of Stay (Days)
Dai
ly R
ate
of
Dis
char
ge
Prolongation Point
Increasing discharge rate: More likely to go home as the patient stays longer
Declining discharge rate: Less likely to go home as the patient stays longer
Silber, Rosenbaum et al. HSR 1999
Rate of Discharge
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
Days
0 5 10 15 20
Computing PLOS for AMI using the Hollander-Proschan Test
Hospital Day Number going home HP T statistic T*
1 6837 8.3396E+14 -90.58
2 18697 8.4047E+14 23.09
3 27609 6.4994E+14 80.59
4 26166 3.8612E+14 88.67
5 20566 2.085E+14 79.60
6 16237 1.1544E+14 72.71
7 13187 6.5701E+13 68.60
8 10906 3.7849E+13 64.99
9 8718 2.182E+13 60.18
10 7210 1.2897E+13 56.72
11 5972 7.6654E+12 52.31
12 4762 4.577E+12 46.60
Prolongation Points and Percentage of Patients with Prolonged Hospital Stays by Conditions and Procedures (July 2002-June 2003)
Prolongation Point Percent (Hosp. Day No.) ProlongedConditions & Procedures Medicare VA Medicare VAMedicalAMI 3 3 79.7 75.4Stroke 3 3 78.9 76.4GI Bleed 3 3 56.1 53.1CHF 3 3 66.0 62.6SurgicalLap Chole 2 2 66.6 57.5R Hemicol. 6 6 65.7 71.9Sigmoidectomy 6 6 72.5 74.0O Chole 5 5 66.3 66.7Total Knee 4 5 44.1 38.6O Red Femur Fx w/ Int Fix 4 7 76.3 62.6Total Hip 4 5 48.2 47.7Exc Interverteb Disc 2 2 38.6 42.6Res AAA 6 6 70.2 71.5End Graft AA 2 3 44.8 55.7AKA 5 14 81.6 44.6Femoral-Pop Bypass 6 6 65.4 67.4Toe Amp 6 7 56.9 61.1
The longer one stays, the longer one will stay
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30
Days in Hospital (After each specific starting point)
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Re
ma
inin
g in
Ho
sp
ita
l
Prolongation Point+0 Days
Prolongation Point+4 Days
Prolongation Point+8 Days
Prolongation Point+12 Days
Types of PLOS Measures
• PLOScost: Use LOS for death as it occurred
• PLOSoutcomes: Use LOS for death as prolonged
• We used PLOSoutcomes for this study, but results were stable using either definition
A Difference-in-Differences Study of PLOS
0
5
10
15
20
Pre (AY 2000-2003) Post (AY 2004-5)
Per
cen
t P
rolo
ng
ed
Non-teaching Teaching A Teaching B Teaching C
ACGME Reform
Measuring Teaching Intensity
• We utilized the Resident-to-Bed Ratio as our measure of teaching intensity
• The RB ratio is defined as the total number of residents at a hospital divided by the hospital’s average daily census (ADC), as reported to Medicare using Medicare Cost Reports
• Typically, RB ratios are classified as follows:– RB = 0 (non-teaching)– 0<RB<0.05 (very minor teaching)– .05<RB<0.25 (minor teaching)– 0.25<RB<0.6 (major teaching hospitals)– RB > 0.6 (very major teaching hospitals).
Risk Adjustment Methodology
• We performed Conditional Logistic Regression clustering on the individual hospital
• Risk adjustment was based on Elixhauser comorbidities, transfer-in status, age and sex, and principal procedure or condition
• We utilized a 6-month look-back to improve the sensitivity of the Elixhauser comorbidities
Patient Populations
• Medicare: MEDPAR data on all patients between ages 65 and 90 for Medical Conditions (AMI, CHF, Stroke, and GI bleeding) and Surgical Procedures (General Surgery, Orthopedics, and Vascular Surgery) for 2001-2005.
• VA data: Same years, ages, conditions, and procedures
RESULTS
Patient Characteristics by Diagnosis and Procedure (Medical)
Age Mean No. of
No. of Patients (mean) % Male Comorbidities
Medicare VA Medicare VA Medicare VA Medicare VA
AMI 970,184 32,170 77.3 66.9 52 99 1.9 2.0
Stroke 933,225 25,385 78.4 68.1 42 98 2.1 1.9
GI Bleed 763,765 36,035 78.5 66.9 44 98 2.6 2.3
CHF 1,196,294 50,266 78.6 69.7 44 98 2.6 2.5
Patient Characteristics by Diagnosis and Procedure (Surgical)
Age Mean No. of
No. of Patients (mean) % Male Comorbidities Medicare VA Medicare VA Medicare VA Medicare VAGen Surg Lap Chole 298,108 7,174 75.8 60.4 39 91 1.8 1.4R Hemicol 166,283 6,500 77.0 68.9 43 98 2.2 2.0Sigmoid 103,952 4,232 75.9 64.8 40 98 2.0 1.6Chole 83,172 4,576 76.4 64.4 51 96 1.9 1.6Ortho SurgTotal Knee 651,708 13,658 74.5 65.2 35 96 1.5 1.1O Red I/F Fem 300,713 3,850 81.2 72.7 25 97 2.3 2.1Total Hip 317,561 8,158 75.5 63.1 36 96 1.5 1.1Intervert Disc 94,577 7,053 73.4 52.7 49 95 1.4 0.8Vascular SurgResection AAA 63,995 2,524 75.3 69.8 75 99 2.0 1.9Graft Abd Aorta 43,856 1,927 76.3 71.3 83 100 2.1 1.9AKA 31,890 1,689 79.3 71.3 46 99 3.9 3.1Fem Pop Bypass 25,354 2,907 73.5 61.5 60 99 2.4 1.9Toe Amp 14,378 2,172 79.3 65.6 58 99 3.5 2.6
Prolongation Points and Percentage of Patients with Prolonged Hospital Stays by Conditions and Procedures
Prolongation Point Percent (Hosp. Day No.) ProlongedConditions & Procedures Medicare VA Medicare VAMedicalAMI 3 3 79.7 75.4Stroke 3 3 78.9 76.4GI Bleed 3 3 56.1 53.1CHF 3 3 66.0 62.6SurgicalLap Chole 2 2 66.6 57.5R Hemicol. 6 6 65.7 71.9Sigmoidectomy 6 6 72.5 74.0O Chole 5 5 66.3 66.7Total Knee 4 5 44.1 38.6O Red Femur Fx w/ Int Fix 4 7 76.3 62.6Total Hip 4 5 48.2 47.7Exc Interverteb Disc 2 2 38.6 42.6Res AAA 6 6 70.2 71.5End Graft AA 2 3 44.8 55.7AKA 5 14 81.6 44.6Femoral-Pop Bypass 6 6 65.4 67.4Toe Amp 6 7 56.9 61.1
Medicare Combined Medical Patients
40%
60%
80%
pre-3 pre-2 pre-1 post-1 post-2
Year
Per
cen
t P
rolo
ng
ed
VA Combined Medical Patients
40%
60%
80%
pre-3 pre-2 pre-1 post-1 post -2
Year
Per
cen
t P
rolo
ng
ed
Non-teaching (0) Very Minor/Minor (>0 & <.25)
Major (>0.25& <0.6) Very Major (>0.6)
Unadjusted Results (Medical)
Medicare Combined Surgical Patients
40%
60%
80%
pre-3 pre-2 pre-1 post-1 post-2
Year
Per
cen
t P
rolo
ng
ed
VA Combined Surgical Patients
40%
60%
80%
pre-3 pre-2 pre-1 post-1 post -2
Year
Per
cen
t P
rolo
ng
ed
Non-teaching (0) Very Minor/Minor (>0 & <.25)
Major (>0.25& <0.6) Very Major (>0.6)
Unadjusted Results (Surgical)
Odds of Prolonged Stay Post Duty Hour Reform in More vs. Less Teaching Intensive Hospitals Using Conditional Logistic Regression Controlling for Each Hospital
RB ratio x post-reform year 1 Patient categories OR (95% CI) (Number of Cases Medicare/VA) Medicare VA
Medical ConditionsStroke 1.01 (0.92, 1.10) 0.92 (0.66, 1.27)AMI 1.01 (0.93, 1.10) 0.96 (0.72, 1.29)GI Bleed 1.06 (0.97, 1.16) 1.26 (1.00, 1.58) a
CHF 0.99 (0.92, 1.06) 1.11 (0.92, 1.35)Combined Medical 1.01 (0.97, 1.05) 1.07 (0.94, 1.20)
Surgical ConditionsGeneral Surgery 1.09 (0.99, 1.21) 1.07 (0.79, 1.43)Orthopedic Surgery 1.03 (0.96, 1.10) 0.82 (0.61, 1.12)Vascular Surgery 1.16 (1.00, 1.34) 1.08 (0.66, 1.77)Combined Surgery 1.04 (0.98, 1.09) 0.94 (0.78, 1.14)
ap<0.05
Odds of Prolonged Stay Post Duty Hour Reform in More vs. Less Teaching Intensive Hospitals Using Conditional Logistic Regression Controlling for Each Hospital
RB ratio x post-reform year 2 Patient categories OR (95% CI) (Number of Cases Medicare/VA) Medicare VA
Medical ConditionsStroke 1.01 (0.92, 1.10) 0.95 (0.69, 1.31)AMI 1.06 (0.97, 1.15) 0.96 (0.72, 1.28)GI Bleed 1.09 (1.00, 1.20) 1.08 (0.86, 1.36)CHF 1.02 (0.95, 1.10) 1.18 (0.97, 1.43)Combined Medical 1.04 (0.99, 1.08) 1.05 (0.93, 1.19)
Surgical ConditionsGeneral Surgery 0.94 (0.85, 1.05) 1.02 (0.76, 1.36)Orthopedic Surgery 0.94 (0.88, 1.01) 1.04 (0.77, 1.41)Vascular Surgery 1.21 (1.04, 1.40) a 1.16 (0.71, 1.91)Combined Surgery 0.96 (0.91, 1.01) 1.00 (0.83, 1.21)
ap<0.05
Conclusions
• The change in duty hour rules did not have an overall effect on the probability of experiencing a prolonged stay
• In Medicare and VA systems, hospitals generally found ways to cope with any worsening of continuity of care associated with duty hour reform and by-and-large succeeded in avoiding the confusion and adverse consequences predicted by those opposed to the new regulations.
THE END