Background

Medicare has selected 10 hospital-acquired conditions for which it will not reimburse hospitals unless the condition was documented as "present on admission." This "no pay for errors" rule may have a profound effect on the clinical practice of physicians.

Objective

To determine how physicians might change their behavior after learning about the Medicare rule.

Design

We conducted a randomized trial of a brief educational intervention embedded in an online survey, using clinical vignettes to estimate behavioral changes.

Participants

At a university-based internal medicine residency program, 168 internal medicine residents were eligible to participate.

Intervention

Residents were randomized to receive a one-page description of Medicare's "no pay for errors" rule with pre-vignette reminders (intervention group) or no information (control group). Residents responded to five clinical vignettes in which "no pay for errors" conditions might be present on admission.

Main measures

Primary outcome was selection of the single most clinically appropriate option from three clinical practice choices presented for each clinical vignette.

Key results

Survey administered from December 2008 to March 2009. There were 119 responses (71%). In four of five vignettes, the intervention group was less likely to select the most clinically appropriate response. This was statistically significant in two of the cases. Most residents were aware of the rule but not its impact and specifics. Residents acknowledged responsibility to know Medicare documentation rules but felt poorly trained to do so. Residents educated about the Medicare's "no pay for errors" were less likely to select the most clinically appropriate responses to clinical vignettes. Such choices, if implemented in practice, have the potential for causing patient harm through unnecessary tests, procedures, and other interventions.

Medicare has selected 10 hospital-acquired conditions for which it will not reimburse hospitals unless the condition was documented as “present on admission.” This “no pay for errors” rule may have a profound effect on the clinical practice of physicians. To determine how physicians might change their behavior after learning about the Medicare rule. We conducted a randomized trial of a brief educational intervention embedded in an online survey, using clinical vignettes to estimate behavioral changes. At a university-based internal medicine residency program, 168 internal medicine residents were eligible to participate. Residents were randomized to receive a one-page description of Medicare’s “no pay for errors” rule with pre-vignette reminders (intervention group) or no information (control group). Residents responded to five clinical vignettes in which “no pay for errors” conditions might be present on admission. Primary outcome was selection of the single most clinically appropriate option from three clinical practice choices presented for each clinical vignette. Survey administered from December 2008 to March 2009. There were 119 responses (71%). In four of five vignettes, the intervention group was less likely to select the most clinically appropriate response. This was statistically significant in two of the cases. Most residents were aware of the rule but not its impact and specifics. Residents acknowledged responsibility to know Medicare documentation rules but felt poorly trained to do so. Residents educated about the Medicare’s “no pay for errors” were less likely to select the most clinically appropriate responses to clinical vignettes. Such choices, if implemented in practice, have the potential for causing patient harm through unnecessary tests, procedures, and other interventions.

Background

Resident duty hour limitations aim, in part, to reduce medical errors. Residents' perceptions of the impact of duty hours on errors are unknown.

Objective

To determine residents' self-reported contributing factors, frequency, and impact of hours worked on suboptimal care practices and medical errors.

Design

Cross-sectional survey.

Subjects

164 Internal Medicine Residents at the University of California, San Francisco.

Measurements and results

Residents were asked to report the frequency and contributing factors of suboptimal care practices and medical errors, and how duty hours impacted these practices and aspects of resident work-life. One hundred twenty-five residents (76%) responded. The most common suboptimal care practices were working while impaired by fatigue and forgetting to transmit information during sign-out. In multivariable models, residents who felt overwhelmed with work (p = 0.02) and who reported spending >50% of their time in nonphysician tasks (p = 0.002) were more likely to report suboptimal care practices. Residents reported work-stress (a composite of fatigue, excessive workload, distractions, stress, and inadequate time) as the most frequent contributing factor to medical errors. In multivariable models, only engaging in suboptimal practices was associated with self-report of higher risk for medical errors (p < 0.001); working more than 80 hours per week was not associated with suboptimal care or errors.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that administrative load and work stressors are more closely associated with resident reports of medical errors than the number of hours work. Efforts to reduce resident duty hours may also need to address the nature of residents' work to reduce errors.