Cited by 36Hospital Admissions and OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsInnovations in Medical Education

Early impact of the 2011 ACGME duty hour regulations on surgical outcomes

Open access
Scally, Christopher P., Ryan, Andrew M., Thumma, Jyothi R., Gauger, Paul G., Dimick, Justin B.·2015·Surgery

Abstract

Background In 2011, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented additional restrictions on resident work hours. Although the impact of these restrictions on the education of surgical trainees has been examined, the effect on patient safety remains poorly understood.Methods We used national Medicare Claims data for patients undergoing general (n = 1,223,815) and vascular (n = 475,262) surgery procedures in the 3 years preceding the duty hour changes (January, 2009-June, 2011) and the 18 months thereafter (July, 2011-December, 2012). Hospitals were stratified into quintiles by teaching intensity using a resident to bed ratio. We utilized a difference-in-differences analytic technique, using nonteaching hospitals as a control group, to compare risk-adjusted 30-day mortality, serious morbidity, readmission, and failure to rescue (FTR) rates before and after the duty hour changes.Results After duty hour reform, no changes were seen in the measured outcomes when comparing teaching with nonteaching hospitals. Even when stratifying by teaching intensity, there were no differences. For example, at the highest intensity teaching hospitals (resident/bed ratio of ≥ 0.6), mortality rates before and after the duty hour changes were 4.2% and 4.0%, compared with 4.7% and 4.4% for nonteaching hospitals (relative risk [RR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07). Similarly, serious complication (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.06), FTR (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.87-1.04), and readmission (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03) rates were unchanged.Conclusion In Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery at teaching hospitals, outcomes have not improved since the 2011 ACGME duty hour regulations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.surg.2015.05.002

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior retrospective studies using administrative data concluded that the 16-hour 2011 ACGME work-hour limit did not appreciably impact hospital-level mortality or process of care measures.

    “In addition to these two trials, prior retrospective studies using administrative data similarly concluded that the 16 hours 2011 ACGME work-hour limit did not appreciably impact hospital-level mortality or process of care measures,16 18 28”

    From National improvements in resident physician-reported patient safety after limiting first-year resident physicians’ extended duration work shifts: a pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies (2023) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Methods and Discussion (page not provided) describe a retrospective analysis of Medicare administrative data and report no change in measured surgical patient outcomes after the 2011 regulations, including 30-day mortality. The paper identifies the 16-hour limit as applying to first-year residents, but its listed outcomes do not include process-of-care measures; it also evaluates the regulations as a whole rather than isolating that limit. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scally, C. P., Ryan, A. M., Thumma, J. R., Gauger, P. G., & Dimick, J. B.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Scally, Christopher P.
Venue
Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-12
Volume
158
Issue
6
Pages
1453-1461
ISSN
0039-6060 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W993693568
Cited by
36
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5
FWCI
7.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG039434, 5T32CA009672-23)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01AG039434, 5T32CA009672-23)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
resident work hour restrictions, surgical outcomes, patient safety, teaching hospitals, 30-day mortality, hospital readmission, failure to rescue, Medicare beneficiaries, general surgery, vascular surgery
MeSH terms
Accreditation, Aged, Education, Medical, Graduate, Female, Medicare, Hospitals, Teaching, Humans, Insurance Benefits, Internship and Residency, Male, Patient Readmission, Personnel Staffing and Scheduling, Retrospective Studies, General Surgery, United States, Work Schedule Tolerance, Workload, Treatment Outcome, Hospital Mortality, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review