David S. Macpherson

Promotion Criteria for Clinician-educators

OBJECTIVE: Department of medicine chairs have a critical role in the promotion of clinician-educators. Our primary objective was to determine how chairs viewed: 1) the importance of specific areas of clinician-educator performance in promotion decisions; and 2) the importance and quality of information on available measures of performance. A secondary objective was to compare the views of department chairs with those of promotion and tenure committee chairs.METHODS: In October 1997, a questionnaire was mailed to all department chairs in the United States and Canada asking them to rate the importance of 11 areas of clinician-educators’ performance in evaluating them for promotion. We also asked them to rate 36 measures of performance. We compared their responses to a similar 1996 survey administered to promotion committee chairs.RESULTS: One hundred fourteen of 139 department chairs (82%) responded to the survey. When considering a clinician-educator for promotion, department chairs view teaching skills and clinical skills as the most important areas of performance, as did the promotion committee chairs. Of the measures used to evaluate teaching performance, teaching awards were considered most important and rated as a high-quality measure. When evaluating a clinician-educator’s clinical skills, peer and trainee evaluation were considered as the most important measures of performance, but these were rated low in quality. Patient satisfaction and objective outcome measures also were viewed as important measures that needed improvement. Promotion committee chairs placed more emphasis on productivity in publications and external grant support when compared to department chairs.CONCLUSION: It is reassuring that both department chairs and promotion committee chairs value teaching skills and clinical skills as the most important areas of a clinician-educator’s performance when evaluating for promotion. However, differences in opinion regarding the importance of several performance measures and the need for improved quality measures may represent barriers to the timely promotion of clinician-educators.

Active Care Management Supported by Home Telemonitoring in Veterans with Type 2 Diabetes: (The DiaTel Randomized Controlled Trial)

OBJECTIVE We compared the short-term efficacy of home telemonitoring coupled with active medication management by a nurse practitioner with a monthly care coordination telephone call on glycemic control in veterans with type 2 diabetes and entry A1C ≥7.5%. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Veterans who received primary care at the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System from June 2004 to December 2005, who were taking oral hypoglycemic agents and/or insulin for ≥1 year, and who had A1C ≥7.5% at enrollment were randomly assigned to either active care management with home telemonitoring (ACM+HT group, n = 73) or a monthly care coordination telephone call (CC group, n = 77). Both groups received monthly calls for diabetes education and self-management review. ACM+HT group participants transmitted blood glucose, blood pressure, and weight to a nurse practitioner using the Viterion 100 TeleHealth Monitor; the nurse practitioner adjusted medications for glucose, blood pressure, and lipid control based on established American Diabetes Association targets. Measures were obtained at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month visits. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups, with mean A1C of 9.4% (CC group) and 9.6% (ACM+HT group). Compared with the CC group, the ACM+HT group demonstrated significantly larger decreases in A1C at 3 months (1.7 vs. 0.7%) and 6 months (1.7 vs. 0.8%; P < 0.001 for each), with most improvement occurring by 3 months. CONCLUSIONS Compared with the CC group, the ACM+HT group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in A1C by 3 and 6 months. However, both interventions improved glycemic control in primary care patients with previously inadequate control.

Patient Satisfaction in Resident and Attending Ambulatory Care Clinics

OBJECTIVE: To measure and compare patient satisfaction with care in resident and attending physician internal medicine ambulatory care clinics.DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey using a questionnaire derived from the Visit-Specific Satisfaction Questionnaire (VSQ) and Patient Satisfaction Index (PSI) distributed from March 1998 to May 1998.SETTING: Four clinics based at a university teaching hospital and the associated Veterans’ Affairs (VA) hospital.PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred eighty-eight patients of 76 resident and 25 attending physicians.RESULTS: Patients of resident physicians at the university site were more likely to be African American, male, have lower socioeconomic status and have lower physical and mental health scores on the Short Form-12 than patients of university attendings. Patients of resident and attending physicians at the VA site were similar. In multivariate analyses, patients of university attending physicians were more likely to be highly satisfied than patients of university residents on the VSQ-Physician (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6 to 7.8) and the PSI-Physician (OR, 10.1; 95% CI, 3.7 to 27.4) summary scores. Differences were not seen on the summary scores at the VA site. Two individual items displayed significant differences between residents and attendings at both sites: “personal manner (courtesy, respect, sensitivity, friendliness) of the doctor” (P≤.03 at both sites) and “my doctor always treats me with the highest respect” (P<.001 at both sites).CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for patient characteristics, patients of resident physicians were less satisfied than those of attending physicians, especially in regard to the doctor’s personal manner and respect toward the patient. Medical education should continue to emphasize the importance of these aspects of the physician-patient encounter.

Preoperative laboratory testing : should any tests be routine before surgery ?

Routine preoperative testing of all patients before elective surgery is unjustified. The frequency of unanticipated abnormalities or abnormalities shown to change patient management is too low to justify a practice pattern of testing all patients. Furthermore, little evidence exists that test result abnormalities are associated with perioperative morbidity. Table 12 lists a compilation of the findings from this article and recommendations regarding routine testing.

Preoperative Screening: Value of Previous Tests

OBJECTIVE To determine the frequency of tests done in the year before elective surgery that might substitute for preoperative screening tests and to determine the frequency of test results that change from a normal value to a value likely to alter perioperative management. DESIGN Retrospective cohort analysis of computerized laboratory data (complete blood count, sodium, potassium, and creatinine levels, prothrombin time, and partial thromboplastin time). SETTING Urban tertiary care Veterans Affairs Hospital. PATIENTS Consecutive sample of 1109 patients who had elective surgery in 1988. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS At admission, 7549 preoperative tests were done, 47% of which duplicated tests performed in the previous year. Of 3096 previous results that were normal as defined by hospital reference range and done closest to the time of but before admission (median interval, 2 months), 13 (0.4%; 95% CI, 0.2% to 0.7%), repeat values were outside a range considered acceptable for surgery. Most of the abnormalities were predictable from the patients history, and most were not noted in the medical record. Of 461 previous tests that were abnormal, 78 (17%; CI, 13% to 20%) repeat values at admission were outside a range considered acceptable for surgery (P less than 0.001, frequency of clinically important abnormalities of patients with normal previous results with those with abnormal previous results). CONCLUSIONS Physicians evaluating patients preoperatively could safely substitute the previous test results analyzed in this study for preoperative screening tests if the previous tests are normal and no obvious indication for retesting is present.

An internist joins the surgery service: does comanagement make a difference?

Objective: To determine the effect of internist comanagement of cardiothoracic surgical patients on patient outcome and resource utilization.Design: Before/after comparison.Setting: Tertiary care university-affiliated Veterans Affairs hospital.Patients: 165 patients (86 before the intervention and 79 after the intervention) undergoing cardiothoracic surgery.Interventions: All patients were seen preoperatively and at least daily through discharge by a comanaging staff internist who was a full-time member of the surgical team.Main outcome measures: Length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and laboratory and radiology utilization.Results: Significant shortening of postoperative length of stay (18.1 days before and 12.1 days after, p=0.05) and total length of stay (27.2 days before and 19.7 days after, p=0.03) was noted. The inhospital mortality rate for the patients undergoing surgery was 8.1% before the intervention versus 2.5% afterward (p=0.17). There were significant reductions in the total number of x-rays (p=0.02) and nearly significant reductions in total laboratory test utilization (p=0.06). Referring physicians and surgeons both believed that the contribution of the internist was important.Conclusions: The addition of an internist to the cardiothoracic surgery service at a tertiary care teaching center was associated with decreased resource utilization and possible improved outcomes. Before becoming more widely adopted, this intervention deserves further exploration at other sites using stronger study designs.

Outpatient Internal Medicine Preoperative Evaluation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect on resource use of a program outpatient internal medicine preoperative evaluation in a two arm parallel design randomized clinical trial. In a tertiary care teaching Veterans Affairs hospital, 355 patients (179 inpatient arm, 176 outpatient arm) (mean age 65.5 years) were referred for internal medicine preoperative evaluation before elective surgery. Outpatient internist preoperative evaluation was performed 2 to 3 weeks before admission for surgery in the experimental arm with preoperative laboratory and radiology testing performed during the visit. The control arm was admitted for surgery without outpatient evaluation. The main outcome measure was the length of stay. Preoperative length of stay was significantly reduced from 2.9 days in the inpatient arm to 1.6 days in the outpatient arm (P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval of the difference, −0.8 to −1.8 days). Postoperative length of stay in the outpatient arm (3.6 days) was slightly but not significantly longer than the inpatient arm (3.0 days) (95% confidence interval of the increase, −0.6 to 1.8 days). Total length of stay showed no significant difference between the outpatient (5.5 days) and inpatient (6.0 days) arms (95% confidence interval of the difference, −2.0 to 1.1 days). Unnecessary admissions, defined as patients admitted who were admitted but did not undergo surgery, were decreased significantly comparing the inpatient arm (12.3%) to the outpatient arm (5.7%) (95% confidence interval of the difference, 0.5% to 12.7%). Measures of resource use showed no difference between arms including laboratory tests (95% C.I. of the difference, −3.0 to 6.8 tests), imaging tests (95% C.I. of the difference, −0.5 to 0.8 tests) were administered. A significant increase in the use of consultants between the outpatient arm (1.3 consultations) and inpatient arm (0.9 consultations) was discovered (95% C.I. of the difference, 0.2 to 0.6). Patients health status after discharge and satisfaction with care were not different between the two arms of the investigation. A program of outpatient internal medicine preoperative evaluation significantly reduced preoperative length of stay with a lesser effect on total length of stay. Unnecessary admission of patients for elective surgery were reduced by this program.

Veteran, Primary Care Provider, and Specialist Satisfaction With Electronic Consultation

Background Access to specialty care is challenging for veterans in rural locations. To address this challenge, in December 2009, the Veterans Affairs (VA) Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS) implemented an electronic consultation (e-consult) program to provide primary care providers (PCPs) and patients with enhanced specialty care access. Objective The aim of this quality improvement (QI) project evaluation was to: (1) assess satisfaction with the e-consult process, and (2) identify perceived facilitators and barriers to using the e-consult program. Methods We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with veteran patients (N=15), Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) PCPs (N=15), and VA Pittsburgh specialty physicians (N=4) who used the e-consult program between December 2009 to August 2010. Participants answered questions regarding satisfaction in eight domains and identified factors contributing to their responses. Results Most participants were white (patients=87%; PCPs=80%; specialists=75%) and male (patients=93%; PCPs=67%; specialists=75%). On average, patients had one e-consult (SD 0), PCPs initiated 6 e-consults (SD 6), and VAPHS specialists performed 17 e-consults (SD 11). Patients, PCPs, and specialty physicians were satisfied with e-consults median (range) of 5.0 (4-5) on 1-5 Likert-scale, 4.0 (3-5), and 3.5 (3-5) respectively. The most common reason why patients and specialists reported increased overall satisfaction with e-consults was improved communication, whereas improved timeliness of care was the most common reason for PCPs. Communication was the most reported perceived barrier and facilitator to e-consult use. Conclusions Veterans and VA health care providers were satisfied with the e-consult process. Our findings suggest that while the reasons for satisfaction with e-consult differ somewhat for patients and physicians, e-consult may be a useful tool to improve VA health care system access for rural patients.

Black-white differences in severity of coronary artery disease among individuals with acute coronary syndromes

AbstractOBJECTIVE: To determine whether the extent of coronary obstructive disease is similar among black and white patients with acute coronary syndromes. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. PATIENTS: We used administrative discharge data to identify white and black male patients, 30 years of age or older, who were discharged between October 1, 1989 and September 30, 1995 from 1 of 6 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals with a primary diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or unstable angina (UnA) and who underwent coronary angiography during the admission. We excluded patients if they did not meet standard clinical criteria for AMI or UnA or if they had had prior percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass grafting. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Physician reviewers classified the degree of coronary obstruction from blinded coronary angiography reports. Obstruction was considered significant if there was at least 50% obstruction of the left main coronary artery, or if there was 70% obstruction in 1 of the 3 major epicardial vessels or their main branches. Of the 628 eligible patients, 300 (48%) had AMI. Among patients with AMI, blacks were more likely than whites to have no significant coronary obstructions (28/145, or 19%, vs 10/155 or 7%, P=.001). Similarly, among patients with UnA, 33% (56/168) of blacks but just 17% (27/160) of whites had no significant stenoses (P=.012). There were no racial differences in severity of coronary disease among veterans with at least 1 significant obstruction. Racial differences in coronary obstructions remained after correcting for coronary disease risk factors and characteristics of the AMI. CONCLUSIONS: Black veterans who present with acute coronary insufficiency are less likely than whites to have significant coronary obstruction. Current understanding of coronary disease does not provide an explanation for these differences.

The Diabetes Telemonitoring Study Extension: an exploratory randomized comparison of alternative interventions to maintain glycemic control after withdrawal of diabetes home telemonitoring

BACKGROUND Telemonitoring interventions featuring transmission of home glucose records to healthcare providers have resulted in improved glycemic control in patients with diabetes. No research has addressed the intensity or duration of telemonitoring required to sustain such improvements. PURPOSE The DiaTel study (10 January 2005 to 1 November 2007) compared active care management (ACM) with home telemonitoring (n=73) to monthly care coordination (CC) telephone calls (n=77) among veterans with diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control. The purpose of the DiaTel Extension was to assess whether initial improvements could be sustained with interventions of the same or lower intensity among participants who re-enrolled in a 6-month extension of DiaTel. METHODS DiaTel participants receiving ACM were re-assigned randomly to monthly CC calls with continued telemonitoring but no active medication management (ACM-to-CCHT, n=23) or monthly CC telephone calls (ACM-to-CC, n=21). DiaTel participants receiving CC were re-assigned randomly to continued CC (CC-to-CC, n=28) or usual care (UC, ie, CC-to-UC, n=29). Hemaglobin A1c (HbA1c) was assessed at 3 and 6 months following re-randomization. RESULTS Marked HbA1c improvements observed in DiaTel ACM participants were sustained 6 months after re-randomization in both ACM-to-CCHT and ACM-to-CC groups. Lesser HbA1c improvements observed in DiaTel CC participants were sustained in both CC-to-CC and CC-to-UC groups. No benefit was apparent for continued transmission of glucose data among DiaTel ACM participants or continued monthly telephone calls among DiaTel CC participants 6 months after re-randomization. CONCLUSION Significant improvements in HbA1c achieved using home telemonitoring and active medication management for 6 months were sustained 6 months later with interventions of decreased intensity in VA Health System-qualified veterans. CLINICAL TRIAL REG. NO: NCT00245882, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.