Jed D. Gonzalo

The Return of Bedside Rounds: An Educational Intervention

BackgroundBedside rounds have decreased in frequency on teaching services. Perceived barriers toward bedside rounds are inefficiency and patient and house staff lack of preference for this mode of rounding.ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of a bedside rounding intervention on the frequency of bedside rounding, duration of patient encounters and rounding sessions, and patient and resident attitudes toward bedside rounds.DesignA pre- and postintervention design, with a bedside rounding workshop midway through two consecutive internal medicine rotations, with daily resident interviews, patient surveys, and an end-of-the-year survey given to all Medicine house staff.ParticipantsMedicine house staff and medicine patients.MeasuresFrequency of bedside rounds, duration of new patient encounters and rounding sessions, and patient and house staff attitudes regarding bedside rounds.ResultsForty-four residents completed the bedside rounding workshop. Comparing the preintervention and postintervention phases, bedside rounds increased from <1% to 41% (p < 0.001). The average duration of walk rounding encounters was 16 min, and average duration of bedside rounding encounters was 15 min (p = 0.42). Duration of rounds was 95 and 98 min, respectively (p = 0.52). Patients receiving bedside rounds preferred bedside rounds (99% vs. 83%, p = 0.03) and perceived more time spent at the bedside by their team (p < 0.001). One hundred twelve house staff (71%) responded, with 73% reporting that bedside rounds are better for patient care. House staff performing bedside rounds were less likely to believe that bedside rounds were more educational (53% vs. 78%, p = 0.01).ConclusionsBedside rounding increased after an educational intervention, and the time to complete bedside rounding encounters was similar to alternative forms of rounding. Patients preferred bedside rounds and perceived more time spent at the bedside when receiving bedside rounds. Medicine residents performing bedside rounds were less likely to believe bedside rounds were more educational, but all house staff valued the importance of bedside rounding for the delivery of patient care.

Educating for the 21st-Century Health Care System: An Interdependent Framework of Basic, Clinical, and Systems Sciences

In the face of a fragmented and poorly performing health care delivery system, medical education in the United States is poised for disruption. Despite broad-based recommendations to better align physician training with societal needs, adaptive change has been slow. Traditionally, medical education has focused on the basic and clinical sciences, largely removed from the newer systems sciences such as population health, policy, financing, health care delivery, and teamwork. In this article, authors examine the current state of medical education with respect to systems sciences and propose a new framework for educating physicians in adapting to and practicing in systems-based environments. Specifically, the authors propose an educational shift from a two-pillar framework to a three-pillar framework where basic, clinical, and systems sciences are interdependent. In this new three-pillar framework, students not only learn the interconnectivity in the basic, clinical, and systems sciences but also uncover relevance and meaning in their education through authentic, value-added, and patient-centered roles as navigators within the health care system. Authors describe the Systems Navigation Curriculum, currently implemented for all students at the Penn State College of Medicine, as an example of this three-pillar educational model. Simple adjustments, such as including occasional systems topics in medical curriculum, will not foster graduates prepared to practice in the 21st-century health care system. Adequate preparation requires an explicit focus on the systems sciences as a vital and equal component of physician education.

Patient care transitions from the emergency department to the medicine ward: evaluation of a standardized electronic signout tool

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of a new electronic handoff tool for emergency department to medicine ward patient transfers over a 1-year period. DESIGN Prospective mixed-methods analysis of data submitted by medicine residents following admitting shifts before and after eSignout implementation. SETTING University-based, tertiary-care hospital. PARTICIPANTS Internal medicine resident physicians admitting patients from the emergency department. INTERVENTION An electronic handoff tool (eSignout) utilizing automated paging communication and responsibility acceptance without mandatory verbal communication between emergency department and medicine ward providers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES (i) Incidence of reported near misses/adverse events, (ii) communication of key clinical information and quality of verbal communication and (iii) characterization of near misses/adverse events. RESULTS Seventy-eight of 80 surveys (98%) and 1058 of 1388 surveys (76%) were completed before and after eSignout implementation. Compared with pre-intervention, residents in the post-intervention period reported similar number of shifts with a near miss/adverse event (10.3 vs. 7.8%; P = 0.27), similar communication of key clinical information, and improved verbal signout quality, when it occurred. Compared with the former process requiring mandatory verbal communication, 93% believed the eSignout was more efficient and 61% preferred the eSignout. Patient safety issues related to perceived sufficiency/accuracy of diagnosis, treatment or disposition, and information quality. CONCLUSIONS The eSignout was perceived as more efficient and preferred over the mandatory verbal signout process. Rates of reported adverse events were similar before and after the intervention. Our experience suggests electronic platforms with optional verbal communication can be used to standardize and improve the perceived efficiency of patient handoffs.

Identifying and overcoming the barriers to bedside rounds: a multicenter qualitative study.

Purpose The use of bedside rounds in teaching hospitals has declined, despite recommendations from educational leaders to promote this effective teaching strategy. The authors sought to identify reasons for the decrease in bedside rounds, actual barriers to bedside rounds, methods to overcome trainee apprehensions, and proposed strategies to educate faculty. Method A qualitative inductive thematic analysis using transcripts from audio-recorded, semistructured telephone interviews with a purposive sampling of 34 inpatient attending physicians from 10 academic U.S. institutions who met specific inclusion criteria for “bedside rounds” was performed in 2010. Main outcomes were themes pertaining to barriers, methods to overcome trainee apprehensions, and strategies to educate faculty. Quotations highlighting themes are reported. Results Half of respondents (50%) were associate or full professors, averaging 14 years in academic medicine. Primary reasons for the perceived decline in bedside rounds were physician- and systems related, although actual barriers encountered related to systems, time, and physician-specific issues. To address resident apprehensions, six themes were identified: build partnerships, create safe learning environments, overcome with experience, make bedside rounds educationally worthwhile, respect trainee time, and highlight positive impact on patient care. Potential strategies for educating faculty were identified, most commonly faculty development initiatives, divisional/departmental culture change, and one-on-one shadowing opportunities. Conclusions Bedside teachers encountered primarily systems- and time-related barriers and overcame resident apprehensions by creating a learner-oriented environment. Strategies used by experienced bedside teachers can be used for faculty development aimed at promoting bedside rounds.

The Value of Bedside Rounds: A Multicenter Qualitative Study

Background: Bedside rounds have decreased on teaching services, raising concern about trainees’ clinical skills and patient–physician relationships. Purpose: We sought to identify recognized bedside teachers’ perceived value of bedside rounds to assist in the promotion of bedside rounds on teaching services. Methods: Authors used a grounded theory, qualitative study design of telephone semistructured interviews with bedside teachers (n = 34) from 10 U.S. institutions (2010–2011). Main outcomes were characteristics of participants, themes pertaining to the perceived value of bedside rounds, and quotations highlighting each respective theme. Results: The mean years in academic medicine was 13.7, and 51% were associate or full professors. Six main themes emerged: (a) skill development for learners (e.g., physical examination, communication, and clinical decision-making skills); (b) observation and feedback; (c) role-modeling; (d) team building among trainees, attending, and patient; (e) improved patient care delivery through combined clinical decision-making and team consensus; and (f) the culture of medicine as patient-centered care, which was embodied in all themes. Conclusions: Bedside teachers identify potential benefits of bedside rounds, many of which align with national calls to change our approach to medical education. The practice of bedside rounds enables activities essential to high-quality patient care and education.

Health Systems Science Curricula in Undergraduate Medical Education: Identifying and Defining a Potential Curricular Framework.

Purpose The authors performed a review of 30 Accelerating Change in Medical Education full grant submissions and an analysis of the health systems science (HSS)-related curricula at the 11 grant recipient schools to develop a potential comprehensive HSS curricular framework with domains and subcategories. Method In phase 1, to identify domains, grant submissions were analyzed and coded using constant comparative analysis. In phase 2, a detailed review of all existing and planned syllabi and curriculum documents at the grantee schools was performed, and content in the core curricular domains was coded into subcategories. The lead investigators reviewed and discussed drafts of the categorization scheme, collapsed and combined domains and subcategories, and resolved disagreements via group discussion. Results Analysis yielded three types of domains: core, cross-cutting, and linking. Core domains included health care structures and processes; health care policy, economics, and management; clinical informatics and health information technology; population and public health; value-based care; and health system improvement. Cross-cutting domains included leadership and change agency; teamwork and interprofessional education; evidence-based medicine and practice; professionalism and ethics; and scholarship. One linking domain was identified: systems thinking. Conclusions This broad framework aims to build on the traditional definition of systems-based practice and highlight the need for medical and other health professions schools to better align education programs with the anticipated needs of the systems in which students will practice. HSS will require a critical investigation into existing curricula to determine the most efficient methods for integration with the basic and clinical sciences.

Authentic clinical experiences and depth in systems: toward a 21st century curriculum

In 1952, a midwestern US medical school launched a revolution in medical education, introducing increased learner responsibility, an organ systems-based curriculum, and early student engagement in patient care through a ‘Family Clinic’ programme. This programme, which linked medical students with pregnant women, created a meaningful mini-immersion for these pre-clerkship students as they followed women through pregnancy, delivery and postnatal care, and infants into early childhood. Students attended all appointments, made home visits, and often developed important longitudinal relationships with mother, child and family, actively contributing to these patients’ health care.

How Can Medical Students Add Value? Identifying Roles, Barriers, and Strategies to Advance the Value of Undergraduate Medical Education to Patient Care and the Health System

Purpose As health systems evolve, the education community is seeking to reimagine student roles that combine learning with meaningful contributions to patient care. The authors sought to identify potential stakeholders regarding the value of student work, and roles and tasks students could perform to add value to the health system, including key barriers and associated strategies to promote value-added roles in undergraduate medical education. Method In 2016, 32 U.S. medical schools in the American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) Accelerating Change in Education Consortium met for a two-day national meeting to explore value-added medical education; 121 educators, systems leaders, clinical mentors, AMA staff leadership and advisory board members, and medical students were included. A thematic qualitative analysis of workshop discussions and written responses was performed, which extracted key themes. Results In current clinical roles, students can enhance value by performing detailed patient histories to identify social determinants of health and care barriers, providing evidence-based medicine contributions at the point-of-care, and undertaking health system research projects. Novel value-added roles include students serving as patient navigators/health coaches, care transition facilitators, population health managers, and quality improvement team extenders. Six priority areas for advancing value-added roles are student engagement, skills, and assessments; balance of service versus learning; resources, logistics, and supervision; productivity/billing pressures; current health systems design and culture; and faculty factors. Conclusions These findings provide a starting point for collaborative work to positively impact clinical care and medical education through the enhanced integration of value-added medical student roles into care delivery systems.

Priority Areas and Potential Solutions for Successful Integration and Sustainment of Health Systems Science in Undergraduate Medical Education

Educators, policy makers, and health systems leaders are calling for significant reform of undergraduate medical education (UME) and graduate medical education (GME) programs to meet the evolving needs of the health care system. Nationally, several schools have initiated innovative curricula in both classroom and workplace learning experiences to promote education in health systems science (HSS), which includes topics such as value-based care, health system improvement, and population and public health. However, the successful implementation of HSS curricula across schools is challenged by issues of curriculum design, assessment, culture, and accreditation, among others. In this report of a working conference using thematic analysis of workshop recommendations and experiences from 11 U.S. medical schools, the authors describe seven priority areas for the successful integration and sustainment of HSS in educational programs, and associated challenges and potential solutions. In 2015, following regular HSS workgroup phone calls and an Accelerating Change in Medical Education consortium-wide meeting, the authors identified the priority areas: partner with licensing, certifying, and accrediting bodies; develop comprehensive, standardized, and integrated curricula; develop, standardize, and align assessments; improve the UME to GME transition; enhance teachers’ knowledge and skills, and incentives for teachers; demonstrate value added to the health system; and address the hidden curriculum. These priority areas and their potential solutions can be used by individual schools and HSS education collaboratives to further outline and delineate the steps needed to create, deliver, study, and sustain effective HSS curricula with an eye toward integration with the basic and clinical sciences curricula.

Exploring challenges in implementing a health systems science curriculum: a qualitative analysis of student perceptions.

Although a critical component of educational reform involves the inclusion of knowledge of and skills in health systems science (HSS) (including population health, health system improvement and high‐value care) many undergraduate medical education programmes focus primarily on traditional basic and clinical sciences. In this study, we investigated students’ perceptions of the barriers to, challenges involved in and benefits of the implementation of a HSS curriculum.