• Acad Med · Mar 2014

    Review Meta Analysis Comparative Study

    Patient outcomes in teaching versus nonteaching general internal medicine services: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Anita G Au, Raj S Padwal, Sumit R Majumdar, and Finlay A McAlister.
    • Dr. Au is clinical lecturer, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Dr. Padwal is associate professor of medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Dr. Majumdar is professor of medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Dr. McAlister is professor of medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
    • Acad Med. 2014 Mar 1; 89 (3): 517-23.

    PurposePatient care quality appears to be similar when delivered by trainee and attending physicians. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine whether outcomes differ for general internal medicine (GIM) patients admitted to teaching versus nonteaching services.MethodThe authors searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases in May 2012 to identify peer-reviewed, English-language studies with contemporaneous controls comparing inpatient mortality, 30-day readmission rate, and/or length of stay (LOS) for inpatients admitted to teaching or nonteaching GIM services.ResultsThe 15 included studies (1 randomized controlled trial, 14 observational) included 108,570 patients admitted to U.S. hospitals during 1987-2011. Inpatient mortality did not differ between teaching and nonteaching services (13 studies, 108,015 patients; 2.5% versus 2.8%; OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.87-1.32; I = 82%); results were consistent in risk-adjusted studies (adjusted OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.08) and higher-quality studies (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.73-1.21). There were no differences in 30-day readmission rates (11 studies, 106,021 patients; 15.1% versus 13.1%; OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.18). Patients on teaching services appeared to have longer LOS (11 studies, 82,352 patients; unadjusted mean difference, 0.40 days; 95% CI, 0.04-0.77 days), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I = 95%). Differences disappeared in risk-adjusted studies (mean difference: -0.09 days; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.06 days) and in higher-quality studies (mean difference: -0.05 days; 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.28 days).ConclusionsThere was no convincing evidence that outcomes differed substantively for patients admitted to teaching or nonteaching GIM services.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,706,642 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.