Jeffrey Borkan

Finding meaning after the fall: Injury narratives from elderly hip fracture patients

Hip fractures occur frequently among the elderly, often with severe medical, psychological and social repercussions. This research takes a new look at hip fracture rehabilitation, focusing on meanings and post-fracture prognostic indicators. An innovative methodological approach to narrative analysis is employed which combines ethnographic and epidemiologic techniques. Analyses of injury narratives from 80 elderly subjects interviewed soon after initial hospitalization are presented, focusing on three categories of meaning: explanatory models, sense of disability, and futurity. Insights from these narratives, as well as from questionnaires and observations, shed light on the experience of hip fracture for the elderly. In addition, aspects of the initial narratives are considered in relation to ambulation outcomes at 3 and 6 months. Those individuals who perceive their problem in a more external or mechanical fashion (caused by the environment) show greater improvement in ambulation at 3 and 6 months relative to those who show no evidence of this thinking or who perceive it as an internal or organic problem (in terms of disease or illness). Greater improvement in ambulation at 3 and 6 months is also noted for subjects whose perception of disability was consistent with more autonomy, independence, and a sense of connection with the world around them. The present study demonstrates the potential utility of narrative analysis as a data reduction approach. It also suggests the possibility of new psychosocial prognostic factors for hip fracture rehabilitation.

Reflecting on reflections: enhancement of medical education curriculum with structured field notes and guided feedback.

The promotion of reflective capacity within the teaching of clinical skills and professionalism is posited as fostering the development of competent health practitioners. An innovative approach combines structured reflective writing by medical students and individualized faculty feedback to those students to augment instruction on reflective practice. A course for preclinical students at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, entitled “Doctoring,” combined reflective writing assignments (field notes) with instruction in clinical skills and professionalism and early clinical exposure in a small-group format. Students generated multiple e-mail field notes in response to structured questions on course topics. Individualized feedback from a physician–behavioral scientist dyad supported the students’ reflective process by fostering critical-thinking skills, highlighting appreciation of the affective domain, and providing concrete recommendations. The development and implementation of this innovation are presented, as is an analysis of the written evaluative comments of students taking the Doctoring course. Theoretical and clinical rationales for features of the innovation and supporting evidence of their effectiveness are presented. Qualitative analyses of students’ evaluations yielded four themes of beneficial contributions to their learning experience: promoting deeper and more purposeful reflection, the value of (interdisciplinary) feedback, the enhancement of group process, and personal and professional development. Evaluation of the innovation was the fifth theme; some limitations are described, and suggestions for improvement are provided. Issues of the quality of the educational paradigm, generalizability, and sustainability are addressed.

Patients’ Perceptions of Cholesterol, Cardiovascular Disease Risk, and Risk Communication Strategies

PURPOSE Despite some recent improvement in knowledge about cholesterol in the United States, patient adherence to cholesterol treatment recommendations remains suboptimal. We undertook a qualitative study that explored patients’ perceptions of cholesterol and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and their reactions to 3 strategies for communicating CVD risk. METHODS We conducted 7 focus groups in New England using open-ended questions and visual risk communication prompts. The multidisciplinary study team performed qualitative content analysis through immersion/crystallization processes and analyzing coded reports using NVivo qualitative coding software. RESULTS All participants were aware that “high cholesterol” levels adversely affect health. Many had, however, inadequate knowledge about hypercholesterolemia and CVD risk, and few knew their cholesterol numbers. Many assumed they had been tested and their cholesterol concentrations were healthy, even if their physicians had not mentioned it. Standard visual representations showing statistical probabilities of risk were assessed as confusing and uninspiring. A strategy that provides a cardiovascular risk-adjusted age was evaluated as clear, memorable, relevant, and potentially capable of motivating people to make healthful changes. A few participants in each focus group were concerned that a cardiovascular risk-adjusted age that was greater than chronological age would frighten patients. CONCLUSIONS Complex explanations about cholesterol and CVD risk appear to be insufficient for motivating behavior change. A cardiovascular risk-adjusted age calculator is one strategy that may engage patients in recognizing their CVD risk and, when accompanied by information about risk reduction, may be helpful in communicating risk to patients.

An agenda for primary care research on low back pain

In October 1995, an International Forum for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain was held in Seattle, Washington. The Forum focused on the broad range of decisions that patients and their primary care providers make concerning how to best manage low back pain. In addition to providing a venue for summarizing the current state of knowledge about these issues, a major goal of the Forum was to draft an agenda for future primary care research on low back pain. Previous efforts to delineate priority areas for research in this field have emphasized the concerns of basic scientists, pain specialists, and surgeons while ignoring the major concerns of patients and providers in the primary care setting, where the majority of patients with back pain are seen. This article describes the group consensus process used to draft an agenda, presents the items included, and contrasts this primary care agenda with agendas for back pain research developed primarily by specialists. This agenda identifies for the first time the clinical and methodologic issues that primary care experts on back pain consider to be of highest priority. Hopefully, it will help focus future primary care research and encourage funding agencies to give priority to the issues identified.

Overcoming barriers to teaching the behavioral and social sciences to medical students.

Most U.S. medical schools offer courses in the behavioral and social sciences (BSS), but their implementation is frequently impeded by problems. First, medical students often fail to perceive the relevance of the BSS for clinical practice. Second, the BSS are vaguely defined and the multiplicity of the topics that they include creates confusion about teaching priorities. Third, there is a lack of qualified teachers, because physicians may have received little or no instruction in the BSS, while behavioral and social scientists lack experience in clinical medicine. The authors propose an approach that may be useful in overcoming these problems and in shaping a BSS curriculum according to the institutional values of various medical schools. This approach originates from insights gathered during their attempts to teach various BSS topics at four Israeli medical schools. They suggest that medical faculties (1) adopt an integrative approach to learning the biomedical, behavioral, and social sciences using Engels “biopsychosocial model” as a link between the BSS and clinical practice, (2) define a hierarchy of learning objectives and assign the highest priority to acquisition of clinically relevant skills, and (3) develop clinical role models through teacher training programs. This approach emphasizes the clinical relevance of the BSS, defines learning priorities, and promotes cooperation between clinical faculty and behavioral scientists.

Advances in the field of low back pain in primary care: a report from the fourth international forum.

Study Design. Review of advances in the primary care research on low back pain (LBP) from a unique international forum, and analysis of open-ended questionnaires from participants. Summary of Background Data. LBP continues to be one of the most common and challenging problems in primary care. It is associated with enormous costs in terms of direct health care expenditures, and indirect work and disability-related losses. Objective. To ascertain the current status and state of the art regarding LBP in primary care. Methods. Four reviewers independently assessed the content and implications of presentations at the Fourth International Forum for Primary Care Research on LBP, pooled the data, and then augmented it with open-ended questionnaires completed by 35 participants. Results. The Fourth Forum documented the field’s emergent new paradigm–a transition from thinking about back pain as a biomedical “injury” to viewing LBP as a multifactorial biopsychosocial pain syndrome. The paradigm shift has occurred in the context of increased interest in evidence-based medicine regarding LBP in primary care. The Forum demonstrated the strides taken in moving from research and evidence gathering, through guidelines and policy formulations and finally to the dissemination and implementation imperative. There was an increasing confidence among the Forum researchers that LBP can be managed successfully in primary care settings through a combination of encouraging activity, reassurance, short-term symptom control, and alteration of inappropriate beliefs about the correlations of back pain with impairment and disability. There is also recognition that a wide range of international, evidence-based guidelines now exists that have very similar messages. Conclusions. The Fourth Forum reflected a major shift in the conceptualization of LBP in primary care and an increased emphasis on implementation and dissemination of LBP research findings and clinical guidelines. Although there is a wide array of challenges ahead, the Fourth Forum provided a clear message regarding the need to focus research energies on changing practitioner behavior.

Primary Care Research Priorities in Low Back Pain An Update

Study Design. Survey report. Objective. To reassess an existing list of research priorities in primary care low back pain (LBP) and to develop a new research agenda. Summary of Background Data. Primary care LBP researchers developed an agenda of research priorities in 1997 at an international conference. In 2009, a survey was conducted to re-evaluate the 1997 research priorities and to develop a new research agenda. Methods. Two-phase, Internet-based survey of participants in one of the LBP primary care research fora. The first phase collected information on importance, feasibility, and progress for the 1997 priorities; during this phase, the respondents were also asked to list the 5 most important current primary care–relevant LBP research questions. The second phase ranked these current research priorities. Results. A total of 179 persons responded to the first phase, representing 30% of those surveyed. Rankings of the 1997 priorities were somewhat similar compared with 2009, although research on beliefs and expectations and improving the quality of LBP research became more important, and research on guidelines and psychosocial interventions became less important. Organizing more effective primary care for LBP, implementing best practices, and translating research to practice were ranked higher compared with 1997. Most priorities were also ranked as relatively feasible. The new agenda was similar, and included subgroup-based treatment and studies on causes and mechanisms of LBP as new top priorities. Conclusion. Changes in research priorities seem to reflect recent advances, new opportunities, and limitations in our ability to improve care.

Encouraging scholarship: medical school programs to promote student inquiry beyond the traditional medical curriculum.

Many medical curricula now include programs that provide students with opportunities for scholarship beyond that provided by their traditional, core curricula. These scholarly concentration (SC) programs vary greatly in focus and structure, but they share the goal of producing physicians with improved analytic, creative, and critical-thinking skills. In this article, the authors explore models of both required and elective SC programs. They gathered information through a review of medical school Web sites and direct contact with representatives of individual programs. Additionally, they discuss in-depth the SC programs of the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University; the University of South Florida College of Medicine; the University of California, San Francisco; and Stanford University School of Medicine. The authors describe each programs focus, participation, duration, centralization, capstone requirement, faculty involvement, and areas of concentration. Established to address a variety of challenges in the U.S. medical education system, these four programs provide an array of possible models for schools that are considering the establishment of an SC program. Although data on the impact of SC programs are lacking, the authors believe that this type of program has the potential to significantly impact the education of medical students through scholarly, in-depth inquiry and longitudinal faculty mentorship.

Gradual Electronic Health Record Implementation: New Insights on Physician and Patient Adaptation

PURPOSE Although there is significant interest in implementation of electronic health records (EHRs), limited data have been published in the United States about how physicians, staff, and patients adapt to this implementation process. The purpose of this research was to examine the effects of EHR implementation, especially regarding physician-patient communication and behaviors and patients’ responses. METHODS We undertook a 22-month, triangulation design, mixed methods study of gradual EHR implementation in a residency-based family medicine outpatient center. Data collection included participant observation and time measurements of 170 clinical encounters, patient exit interviews, focus groups with nurses, nurse’s aides, and office staff, and unstructured observations and interviews with nursing staff and physicians. Analysis involved iterative immersion-crystallization discussion and searches for alternate hypotheses. RESULTS Patient trust in the physician and security in the physician-patient relationship appeared to override most patients’ concerns about information technology. Overall, staff concerns about potential deleterious consequences of EHR implementation were dispelled, positive anticipated outcomes were realized, and unexpected benefits were found. Physicians appeared to become comfortable with the “third actor” in the room, and nursing and office staff resistance to EHR implementation was ameliorated with improved work efficiencies. Unexpected advantages included just-in-time improvements and decreased physician time out of the examination room. CONCLUSIONS Strong patient trust in the physician-patient relationship was maintained and work flow improved with EHR implementation. Gradual EHR implementation may help support the development of beneficial physician and staff adaptations, while maintaining positive patient-physician relationships and fostering the sharing of medical information.

Expectations and Outcomes after Hip Fracture among the Elderly

Hip fractures among the elderly are a common occurrence, with high social and personal costs. Sequelae not infrequently include loss of independent functioning, permanent disability, and death. This prospective study of a cohort of eighty recently diagnosed “hardy” hip fracture patients examines initial rehabilitation expectations using a combination of methods. The study addresses the relationship between initial expectations and changes in ambulatory status from prefracture to three months post-fracture. The importance of previous experience with illness is also explored. Participants who had positive expectations for recovery and those who had greater previous experience were likely to have less negative change in ambulation from prefracture to three months, and better overall ambulation at three months. The findings suggest a relationship between patient expectations for recovery and actual recovery of ambulation, and support the heretofore “clinical impression” that cognition and affect influence the course of rehabilitation after hip fracture.