IOM Releases Report on Graduate Medical Education

On July 29 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report on graduate medical education (GME) (1). This is the residency training that doctors complete after finishing medical school. This training is funded by about $15 billion annually from the Federal government with most of the monies coming from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The report calls for an end to providing the money directly to the teaching hospitals and to dramatically alter the way the funds are paid. Instead payments would be made to community clinics phased in over about 10 years. To administer the program, the report recommends the formation of two committees: 1. A GME Policy Council in the Office of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health; and 2. A GME Center within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to manage the operational aspects of GME CMS funding. The later committee would administer two funds: 1. A GME Operational Fund to distribute ongoing support for residency training positions that are currently approved and funded; and 2. A GME Transformation Fund to finance initiatives to develop and evaluate innovative GME programs, to determine and validate appropriate GME performance measures, to pilot alternative GME payment methods, and to award new Medicare-funded GME training positions in priority disciplines and geographic areas.

If adopted, the plan would end decades of attempts by CMS to coerce medical school graduates into primary care, especially in rural, underserved areas. By controlling funding for GME training, CMS would be able to dictate how physician training. Negative reaction was expected and swift from the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association and the American Council on Graduate Medical Education, whose members would lose CMS money (2-4). Also expected, the proposal was supported by the American Academy of Family Physicians whose members who would gain under the proposal (5).

The IOM committee has a point. Despite a growing public investment in GME, there are persistent problems with uneven geographic distribution of physicians, too many specialists, not enough primary care providers, and a lack of cultural diversity in the physician workforce. Furthermore, according to the report "a variety of surveys indicate that recently trained physicians in some specialties cannot perform simple procedures often required in office-based practice.”

However, can a committee formed by CMS be expected to improve the health of America? Based on the composition of the committee and their past performance we think not. First, the committee was co-chaired by Don Berwick who was head of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), CMS Administrator and presently a candidate for Massachusetts governor (6). During Berwick's tenure, the IHI proposed a number of non- or weakly evidence-based metrics. Many of these have been found to make no impact on patient-centered outcomes such as mortality, length of stay, readmission rates, morbidity, etc. (7). An example was the 18 month 100,000 Lives Campaign which according to Berwick prevented 122,300 avoidable deaths. However, the methodology, incomplete data and sloppy estimation of the number of deaths makes Berwick's claim dubious. Furthermore, when the campaign was expanded to the 5,000,000 Lives Campaign the "results" could not be reproduced. Also during Berwick's tenure, IHI prematurely championed tight control of blood sugar in the ICU, an intervention which resulted in a 14% increase in ICU mortality when properly studied (8). Undaunted, Berwick put many of these same meaningless metrics in place when he became administrator of CMS. One of these metrics, readmission rates, has been associated with a higher mortality (9). Now Berwick is running for Massachusetts governor. One wonders how politics might have affected the report.

Other members of the committee include the committee co-chair, Gail Wilensky, who was administrator of HCFA (the precursor of CMS), nurses, physician assistants, economists, a representative from industry and a number of academics. Missing were members of the large community of practicing physicians. It seems the IOM committee was assembled to produce a political rather than an evidence-based answer of how to solve patient care disparities. To paraphrase a well-known quote, the first casualty of politics is usually the truth. It seems likely that the proposed GME Center within CMS would have a similar composition to Berwick's present IOM committee and would likely offer political rhetoric rather than meaningful reform to GME. Similarly to those championed by Berwick at IHI and later CMS, we suspect that a series of meaningless metrics would be required that would do nothing other than add a paper burden to a medical system already drowning in paperwork. By removing local control, CMS will likely ignore local strengths. For example, the University of Colorado has an extremely strong pulmonary and critical care division. Although America needs this physician expertise, especially critical care, it seems likely that CMS might move these residency slots to family practice or general medicine. We believe that local control with appropriate incentives, is more likely to solve these problems than a centralized bureaucracy in Washington.

Lastly, a word about the report's claim graduates lack the skills to perform basic procedures. Our observations are similar and we are inclined to accept the claim. However, we point out that it was decisions of committees such as those proposed that required attending physicians to perform procedures in order to be reimbursed and that residents have fewer opportunities to perform procedures due to work hour restrictions. The committee's implication that somehow physician trainers are to blame seems quite disingenuous. Not identified in the report but crucial to physician development is developing skills to critically evaluate medical literature, rather than blindly follow the guidelines proposed by CMS, IHI or others of a similar ilk. 

The proposals in the IOM report are a bad idea from a committee whose head has been rife with bad ideas. The committee's report is not the "New Flexner Report" but will be the coffin nail in the death of quality, caring physicians if adopted.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Clement U. Singarajah, MD

Phoenix Pulmonary and Critical Care Research and Education Foundation

Gilbert, AZ

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Graduate medical education that meets the nation's health needs. July 29, 2014. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2014/Graduate-Medical-Education-That-Meets-the-Nations-Health-Needs.aspx (accessed 8/5/14).
2. American Hospital Association. IOM panel recommends new financing system for physician training. July 29, 2014. Available at: http://www.ahanews.com/ahanews/jsp/display.jsp?dcrpath=AHANEWS/AHANewsNowArticle/data/ann_072914_IOM&domain=AHANEWS (accessed 8/5/14).
3. Hoven AD. AMA urges continued support for adequate graduate medical education funding to meet future physician workforce needs. July 29, 2014. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2014/2014-07-29-support-graduate-medical-education-funding.page (accessed 8/5/14).
4. Kirch DG. IOM’s vision of GME will not meet real-world patient needs. July 29, 2014. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/381882/07292014.html (accessed 8/5/14).
5. Blackwelder R. Recommended GME overhaul will support a physician workforce to meet nation’s evolving health needs. July 29, 2014. Available at: http://www.aafp.org/media-center/releases-statements/all/2014/gme-physician-workforce.html (accessed 8/5/14).
6. About Don. Available at: http://www.berwickforgovernor.com/about-don (accessed 8/5/14).
7. Robbins RA. The unfulfilled promise of the quality movement. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2014;8(1):50-63. [CrossRef]
8. NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators. Intensive versus conventional insulin therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1283-97. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Reference as: Robbins RA, Singarajah CU. IOM releases report on graduate medical education. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2014;9(2):123-5. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc107-14 PDF

Changes in Medicine: Residency

Reference as: Robbins RA. Changes in medicine: residency. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care 2011:3:8-10. (Click here for a PDF version)

The most important time in a physician’s educational development is residency, especially the first year. However, residency work and responsibility have come under the scrutiny of a host of agencies and bureaucracies, and therefore, is rapidly changing. Most important in the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies is the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) which accredits residencies and ultimately makes the governing rules.

Resident work hours have received much attention and are clearly decreasing. However, the decline in work hours began in the 1970’s before the present political push to decrease work hours. The residency I entered in 1976 had every third night call during the first year resident’s 6-9 months on general medicine or wards. It had changed from every other night the year before. On wards, we normally were in the hospital for our 24 hours of call and followed this with a 10-12 hour day before going home and getting some well needed sleep. The third day was again a 10-12 hour day before repeating the cycle. This averages over 100 hours per week. There was one week of paid vacation and days off were rare. Both days off and vacations were expected to be done on electives.

First year residents were often poorly supervised despite a senior resident being on call with every 2 interns. Attending physicians were never in the hospital at night. I remember being told by a senior resident, that he was going to bed but I could call him if there was an emergency I could not handle-but he expected me to handle any emergency. I got the message not to call him.

The reduction in work hours was driven by residency directors trying to recruit sufficient residents to fill their slots. Residencies that required every other night call or had indigent level salaries were quickly becoming noncompetitive. By the time I left residency after 3 years, call had decreased to every fourth or fifth night and salaries had risen from about $10,000/year to $14,000/year for first year residents.

The reduction in work hours was brought to public attention and accelerated by the Libby Zion case of 1984 (1). The 18 year old Zion died from a complication of the monoamine oxidase inhibitor she had taken prior to hospitalization exacerbated by administration of meperidine and possibly by cocaine. When her father, Sidney Zion, a journalist/lawyer, learned that her doctors had been medical residents covering dozens of patients and receiving supervision only by phone, he became convinced his daughter's death was due to inadequate staffing at the New York teaching hospital where she died. Determined to ensure that others not fall victim to the same gaps that he blamed for his daughter's death, he crusaded to change resident work hours and supervision with frequent editorials and public appearances.

Over several years a sequence of events occurred to keep Zion’s death in the public eye: a grand jury was called to investigate Zion’s death; the New York State health commissioner appointed the Bell Committee to make recommendations regarding work hours; and a civil lawsuit against the doctors and hospitals was filed by Sidney Zion. All deemed the hospital negligent for leaving a first year resident alone in charge of 40 patients that night. The Bell Commission recommended that residents could work no more than 80 hours a week or more than 24 consecutive hours and senior physicians needed to be physically present in the hospital at all times and these recommendations were adopted by New York State.

The ACGME under political pressure to deal with resident work hours, appointed the Work Group on Resident Duty Hours and the Learning Environment in September 2001. The work group recommended new ACGME standards that were remarkably similar to those of the Bell Commission and these were adopted by the ACGME in 2003 (2).

The rationale behind the work hour reduction is that by working fewer hours and under greater supervision the care delivered by more rested and supervised residents will be better. A tragedy, in addition to Ms. Zion’s death, is that 27 years later we still do not know if this basic premise is true. Although the reduction in resident work hours and the in house presence of attending physicians has undoubtedly increased costs, the impact on length of stay and mortality remain largely unknown (3). The observational, retrospective research that has been done on the impact of resident hour reduction has been sufficiently flawed to make conclusions difficult (4-6). This is unfortunately part of a common trend in administrative medicine, i.e., to initiate changes based on political pressure and later attempt studies to justify the changes.

Concern has been voiced that reduction in work hours and autonomy due to increased supervision may compromise resident education (7). Although there would appear to be little evidence to date supporting this one way or another, I add my voice to those who raise this concern. Making independent decisions is vital to the maturation of residents to independent physicians. The present trend of reducing work hours and increasing supervision, may delay that learning experience to the first year or two of independent practice where correction and constructive criticism are unlikely to occur.

As work hours of residents decline, as medical knowledge expands, and as medical care becomes more complex our residencies will be hard pressed to train competent physicians. One approach is to lengthen the residencies to compensate for the reduced work hours (8). Adding another year or two of residency and/or fellowship is nothing more than extending the indentured servitude of residents to teaching hospitals. 3-6 years of post-graduate training is enough and extending the resident’s time may be more to provide adequate in house coverage than to improve the residents’ education.

I would recommend some carefully designed studies to investigate the impact of shorter work hours. The impact on mortality and length of stay should be examined along with the resident’s fund of knowledge. Perhaps armed with some sound data policy makers can make sound decisions regarding resident education, something we might call evidence-based medicine.

Richard A. Robbins, M.D.

Editor, Southwest Journal of Pulmonary and Critical Care

References

1. Lerner BH. A Case That Shook Medicine. The Washington Post, November 28, 2006. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400985.html

2. Friedmann P, Williams WT Jr, Altschuler SM, et al. Report of the ACGME Work Group on Resident Duty Hours. 2002. Available at: http://www.acgme.org/DutyHours/wkgroupreport611.pdf

3. Nuckols TK, Bhattacharya J, Wolman DM, Ulmer C, Escarce JJ. Cost implications of reduced work hours and workloads for resident physicians. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2202-15.

4. Landrigan CP, Rothschild JM, Cronin JW, Kaushal R, Burdick E, Katz JT, Lilly CM, Stone PH, Lockley SW, Bates DW, Czeisler CA. Effect of reducing interns' work hours on serious medical errors in intensive care units. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1838-48.

5. Volpp KG, Rosen AK, Rosenbaum PR, Romano PS, Even-Shoshan O, Wang Y, Bellini L, Behringer T, Silber JH.. Mortality among hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries in the first 2 years following ACGME resident duty hour reform. JAMA. 2007;298:975-83.

6. Volpp KG, Rosen AK, Rosenbaum PR, Romano PS, Even-Shoshan O, Canamucio A, Bellini L, Behringer T, Silber JH. Mortality among patients in VA hospitals in the first 2 years following ACGME resident duty hour reform. JAMA. 2007;298:984-92.

7. McCoy CP, Halvorsen AJ, Loftus CG, McDonald FS, Oxentenko AS. Effect of 16-hour duty periods on patient care and resident education. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86:192-6.

8. Larson EB, Fihn SD, Kirk LM, Levinson W, Loge RV, Reynolds E, Sandy L, Schroeder S, Wenger N, Williams M; Task Force on the Domain of General Internal Medicine. Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM). The future of general internal medicine. Report and recommendations from the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) Task Force on the Domain of General Internal Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:69-77.

The opinions expressed in this editorial are the opinions of the author and not necessarily the opinions of the Southwest Journal of Pulmonary and Critical Care or the Arizona Thoracic Society.