Romsai T. Boonyasai

A Systematic Review of Teamwork Training Interventions in Medical Student and Resident Education

BackgroundTeamwork is important for improving care across transitions between providers and for increasing patient safety.ObjectiveThis review’s objective was to assess the characteristics and efficacy of published curricula designed to teach teamwork to medical students and house staff.DesignThe authors searched MEDLINE, Education Resources Information Center, Excerpta Medica Database, PsychInfo, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Scopus for original data articles published in English between January 1980 and July 2006 that reported descriptions of teamwork training and evaluation results.MeasurementsTwo reviewers independently abstracted information about curricular content (using Baker’s framework of teamwork competencies), educational methods, evaluation design, outcomes measured, and results.ResultsThirteen studies met inclusion criteria. All curricula employed active learning methods; the majority (77%) included multidisciplinary training. Ten curricula (77%) used an uncontrolled pre/post design and 3 (23%) used controlled pre/post designs. Only 3 curricula (23%) reported outcomes beyond end of program, and only 1 (8%) >6weeks after program completion. One program evaluated a clinical outcome (patient satisfaction), which was unchanged after the intervention. The median effect size was 0.40 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.29, 0.61) for knowledge, 0.38 (IQR 0.32, 0.41) for attitudes, 0.41 (IQR 0.35, 0.49) for skills and behavior. The relationship between the number of teamwork principles taught and effect size achieved a Spearman’s correlation of .74 (p = .01) for overall effect size and .64 (p = .03) for median skills/behaviors effect size.ConclusionsReported curricula employ some sound educational principles and appear to be modestly effective in the short term. Curricula may be more effective when they address more teamwork principles.

Methodological rigor of quality improvement curricula for physician trainees: a systematic review and recommendations for change.

Purpose To systematically determine whether published quality improvement (QI) curricula for physician trainees adhere to QI guidelines and meet standards for study quality in medical education research. Method The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ERIC between 1980 and April 2008 for physician trainee QI curricula and assessed (1) adherence to seven domains containing 35 QI objectives, and (2) study quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results Eighteen curricula met eligibility criteria; 5 involved medical students and 13 targeted residents. Three curricula (18%) measured health care outcomes. Attitudes about QI were high, and many behavior and patient-related outcomes showed positive results. Curricula addressed a mean of 4.3 (SD 1.8) QI domains. Student initiatives included 38.2% [95% CI, 12.2%–64.2%] beginning student-level objectives and 23.0% [95% CI, −4.0% to 50.0%] advanced student-level objectives. Resident curricula addressed 42.3% [95% CI, 29.8%–54.8%] beginning resident-level objectives and 33.7% [95% CI, 23.2%–44.1%] advanced resident-level objectives. The mean (SD) total MERSQI score was 9.86 (2.92) with a range of 5 of 14 [total possible range 5–18]; 35% of curricula demonstrated lower study quality (MERSQI score ≤ 7). Curricula varied widely in quality of reporting, teaching strategies, evaluation instruments, and funding obtained. Conclusions Many QI curricula in this study inadequately addressed QI educational objectives and had relatively weak research quality. Educators seeking to improve QI curricula should use recommended curricular and reporting guidelines, stronger methodologic rigor through development and use of validated instruments, available QI resources already present in health care settings, and outside funding opportunities.

Tried and true: A survey of successfully promoted academic hospitalists†‡§¶

BACKGROUND Academic hospital medicine is a new and rapidly growing field. Hospitalist faculty members often fill roles not typically held by other academic faculty, maintain heavy clinical workloads, and participate in nontraditional activities. Because of these differences, there is concern about how academic hospitalists may fare in the promotions process. OBJECTIVE To determine factors critical to the promotion of successfully promoted hospitalists who have achieved the rank of either associate professor or professor. DESIGN A cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS Thirty-three hospitalist faculty members at 22 academic medical centers promoted to associate professor rank or higher between 1995 and 2008. MEASUREMENTS Respondents were asked to describe their institution, its promotions process, and the activities contributing to their promotion. We identified trends across respondents. RESULTS Twenty-six hospitalists responded, representing 20 institutions (79% response rate). Most achieved promotion in a nontenure track (70%); an equal number identified themselves as clinician-administrators and clinician educators (40%). While hospitalists were engaged in a wide range of activities in the traditional domains of service, education, and research, respondents considered peer-reviewed publication to be the most important activity in achieving promotion. Qualitative responses demonstrated little evidence that being a hospitalist was viewed as a hindrance to promotion. CONCLUSIONS Successful promotion in academic hospital medicine depends on accomplishment in traditional academic domains, raising potential concerns for academic hospitalists with less traditional roles. This study may provide guidance for early-career academic hospitalists and program leaders.

Continuity Clinic Satisfaction and Valuation in Residency Training

BackgroundInternal Medicine residency training in ambulatory care has been judged inadequate, yet how trainees value continuity clinic and which aspects of clinic affect attitudes are unknown.ObjectivesTo determine the value that Internal Medicine residents place on continuity clinic and how clinic precepting, operations, and patient panels affect its valuation.Design and measurementsA survey on ambulatory care was developed, including questions on career choice and the value of clinical training experiences. Independent variables were Likert-scale ratings (1 = disagree strongly/no value; 3 = neutral; 5 = agree strongly/high value) on preceptors, patients, operations, and resident characteristics. Odds ratios and stepwise multivariate logistic regression with clustering were used to evaluate associations between clinic valuation and independent variables.SubjectsInternal medicine residents at 3 residency programs.Results218 of 260 residents (83.8%) completed the survey. Resident ratings were highest on diversity of illness seen (4.1), medical record systems used (4.1), and contact with preceptors who were receptive to questions (4.8). Resident ratings were lowest on economic diversity of patients (2.7), interruptions from inpatient wards (3.1), and contact with preceptors who taught history and physical exam skills (3.5). High ratings on all precepting issues and nearly all operational issues were associated with valuing clinic. With multivariate analysis, high ratings of preceptors as role models were most strongly associated with valuing clinic (corrected relative risk 3.44). A planned career in general Internal Medicine was not associated with valuing clinic.ConclusionsSatisfaction with preceptors, particularly as role models, and clinic operations correlate with the value residents place on continuity clinic.

Procedures Performed by Hospitalist and Non-hospitalist General Internists

BACKGROUNDIn caring exclusively for inpatients, hospitalists are expected to perform hospital procedures. The type and frequency of procedures they perform are not well characterized.OBJECTIVESTo determine which procedures hospitalists perform; to compare procedures performed by hospitalists and non-hospitalists; and to describe factors associated with hospitalists performing inpatient procedures.DESIGNCross-sectional survey.PARTICIPANTSNational sample of general internist members of the American College of Physicians.METHODSWe characterized respondents to a national survey of general internists as hospitalists and non-hospitalists based on time-activity criteria. We compared hospitalists and non-hospitalists in relation to how many SHM core procedures they performed. Analyses explored whether hospitalists’ demographic characteristics, practice setting, and income structure influenced the performance of procedures.RESULTSOf 1,059 respondents, 175 were classified as “hospitalists”. Eleven percent of hospitalists performed all 9 core procedures compared with 3% of non-hospitalists. Hospitalists also reported higher procedural volumes in the previous year for 7 of the 9 procedures, including lumbar puncture (median of 5 by hospitalists vs. 2 for non-hospitalists), abdominal paracentesis (5 vs. 2), thoracenteses (5 vs. 2) and central line placement (5.5 vs. 3). Performing a greater variety of core procedures was associated with total time in patient care, but not time in hospital care, year of medical school graduation, practice location, or income structure. Multivariate analysis found no independent association between demographic factors and performing all 9 core procedures.CONCLUSIONSHospitalists perform inpatient procedures more often and at higher volumes than non-hospitalists. Yet many do not perform procedures that are designated as hospitalist “core competencies.”

A multi-level system quality improvement intervention to reduce racial disparities in hypertension care and control: study protocol

BackgroundRacial disparities in blood pressure control have been well documented in the United States. Research suggests that many factors contribute to this disparity, including barriers to care at patient, clinician, healthcare system, and community levels. To date, few interventions aimed at reducing hypertension disparities have addressed factors at all of these levels. This paper describes the design of Project ReD CHiP (Reducing Disparities and Controlling Hypertension in Primary Care), a multi-level system quality improvement project. By intervening on multiple levels, this project aims to reduce disparities in blood pressure control and improve guideline concordant hypertension care.MethodsUsing a pragmatic trial design, we are implementing three complementary multi-level interventions designed to improve blood pressure measurement, provide patient care management services and offer expanded provider education resources in six primary care clinics in Baltimore, Maryland. We are staggering the introduction of the interventions and will use Statistical Process Control (SPC) charting to determine if there are changes in outcomes at each clinic after implementation of each intervention. The main hypothesis is that each intervention will have an additive effect on improvements in guideline concordant care and reductions in hypertension disparities, but the combination of all three interventions will result in the greatest impact, followed by blood pressure measurement with care management support, blood pressure measurement with provider education, and blood pressure measurement only. This study also examines how organizational functioning and cultural competence affect the success of the interventions.DiscussionAs a quality improvement project, Project ReD CHiP employs a novel study design that specifically targets multi-level factors known to contribute to hypertension disparities. To facilitate its implementation and improve its sustainability, we have incorporated stakeholder input and tailored components of the interventions to meet the specific needs of the involved clinics and communities. Results from this study will provide knowledge about how integrated multi-level interventions can improve hypertension care and reduce disparities.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01566864

Provider-to-Provider Communication during Transitions of Care from Outpatient to Acute Care: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDMost research on transitions of care has focused on the transition from acute to outpatient care. Little is known about the transition from outpatient to acute care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on the transition from outpatient to acute care, focusing on provider-to-provider communication and its impact on quality of care.METHODSWe searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for English-language articles describing direct communication between outpatient providers and acute care providers around patients presenting to the emergency department or admitted to the hospital. We conducted double, independent review of titles, abstracts, and full text articles. Conflicts were resolved by consensus. Included articles were abstracted using standardized forms. We maintained search results via Refworks (ProQuest, Bethesda, MD). Risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the Downs’ and Black’s tool.RESULTSOf 4009 citations, twenty articles evaluated direct provider-to-provider communication around the outpatient to acute care transition. Most studies were cross-sectional (65 %), conducted in the US (55 %), and studied communication between primary care and inpatient providers (62 %). Of three studies reporting on the association between communication and 30-day readmissions, none found a significant association; of these studies, only one reported a measure of association (adjusted OR for communication vs. no communication, 1.08; 95 % CI 0.92–1.26).DISCUSSIONThe literature on provider-to-provider communication at the transition from outpatient to acute care is sparse and heterogeneous. Given the known importance of communication for other transitions of care, future studies are needed on provider-to-provider communication during this transition. Studies evaluating ideal methods for communication to reduce medical errors, utilization, and optimize patient satisfaction at this transition are especially needed.

Case Study: Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership: A model for transformation

To address the challenging health care needs of the population served by an urban academic medical center, we developed the Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership (J-CHiP), a novel care coordination program that provides services in homes, community clinics, acute care hospitals, emergency departments, and skilled nursing facilities. This case study describes a comprehensive program that includes: a community-based intervention using multidisciplinary care teams that work closely with the patients primary care provider; an acute care intervention bundle with collaborative team-based care; and a skilled nursing facility intervention emphasizing standardized transitions and targeted use of care pathways. The program seeks to improve clinical care within and across settings, to address the non-clinical determinants of health, and to ultimately improve healthcare utilization and costs. The case study introduces: a) main program features including rationale, goals, intervention design, and partnership development; b) illness burden and social barriers of the population contributing to care challenges and opportunities; and c) lessons learned with steps that have been taken to engage both patients and providers more actively in the care model. Urban health systems, including academic medical centers, must continue to innovate in care delivery through programs like J-CHiP to meet the needs of their patients and communities.

The Role of Care Management as a Population Health Intervention to Address Disparities and Control Hypertension: A Quasi-Experimental Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE We studied whether care management is a pragmatic solution for improving population blood pressure (BP) control and addressing BP disparities between Blacks and Whites in routine clinical environments. DESIGN Quasi-experimental, observational study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS 3,964 uncontrolled hypertensive patients receiving primary care within the last year from one of six Baltimore clinics were identified as eligible. INTERVENTION Three in-person sessions over three months with registered dietitians and pharmacists who addressed medication titration, patient adherence to healthy behaviors and medication, and disparities-related barriers. MAIN MEASURES We assessed the population impact of care management using the RE-AIM framework. To evaluate effectiveness in improving BP, we used unadjusted, adjusted, and propensity-score matched differences-in-differences models to compare those who completed all sessions with partial completers and non-participants. RESULTS Of all eligible patients, 5% participated in care management. Of 629 patients who entered care management, 245 (39%) completed all three sessions. Those completing all sessions on average reached BP control (mean BP 137/78) and experienced 9 mm Hg systolic blood pressure (P<.001) and 4 mm Hg DBP (P=.004) greater improvement than non-participants; findings did not vary in adjusted or propensity-score matched models. Disparities in systolic and diastolic BP between Blacks and Whites were not detectable at completion. CONCLUSIONS It may be possible to achieve BP control among both Black and White patients who participate in a few sessions of care management. However, the very limited reach and patient challenges with program completion should raise significant caution with relying on care management alone to improve population BP control and eliminate related disparities.

Characteristics of primary care providers who adopted the hospitalist model from 2001 to 2009

BACKGROUND The characteristics of primary care providers (PCPs) who use hospitalists are unknown. METHODS Retrospective study using 100% Texas Medicare claims from 2001 through 2009. Descriptive statistics characterized proportion of PCPs using hospitalists over time. Trajectory analysis and multilevel models of 1172 PCPs with ≥20 inpatients in every study year characterized how PCPs adopted the hospitalist model and PCP factors associated with this transition. RESULTS Hospitalist use increased between 2001 and 2009. PCPs who adopted the hospitalist model transitioned rapidly. In multilevel models, hospitalist use was associated with US training (odds ratio [OR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-1.73 in 2007-2009), family medicine specialty (OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.25-1.70 in 2007-2009), and having high outpatient volumes (OR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.20-1.44 in 2007-2009). Over time, relative hospitalist use decreased among female PCPs (OR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.46-2.50 in 2001-2003; OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.15-1.95 in 2007-2009), those in urban locations (OR: 3.34, 95% CI: 2.72-4.09 in 2001-2003; OR: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.82-2.71 in 2007-2009), and those with higher inpatient volumes (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.95-1.18 in 2001-2003; OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.51-0.60 in 2007-2009). Longest-practicing PCPs were more likely to transition in the early 2000s, but this effect disappeared by the end of the study period (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.06-1.72 in 2001-2003; OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.73-1.17 in 2007-2009). PCPs with practice panels dominated by patients who were white, male, or had comorbidities are more likely to use hospitalists. CONCLUSIONS PCP characteristics are associated with hospitalist use. The association between PCP characteristics and hospitalist use has evolved over time.