Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The quality of preventive care provided in student-run free clinics has not been well documented, although an increasing number of vulnerable populations seek care in these settings. OBJECTIVE: To examine the rate of preventive care services provided in one student-run free clinic compared with national data. Design. Cross-sectional chart review. PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected patients seen between October 2008 and 2009. MAIN MEASURES: Preventive screening guidelines by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA). KEY RESULTS: Among 114 patient charts examined, 48 (42.1%) received an HIV test, which did not differ from national rates (40.8%, p=.78). Similarly, 63.3% of patients received a fasting blood glucose test (64.2%, p=.92). Among eligible patients, 59.6% received a fasting lipid panel and 54.6% a Pap smear; lower than national rates (86.6%, p<.001, and 70.5%, p=.001 respectively), but not different compared with uninsured nationally (61.5%, p=.79, and 54.7%, p=.98). CONCLUSIONS: This student-run free clinic provided preventive services at comparable rates to national levels, but short of goals specified in Healthy People 2020.

BACKGROUND: Reducing readmissions and post-discharge adverse events by improving the quality of discharge care has become a national priority, yet we have limited understanding about how physicians learn to provide high-quality discharge care. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, in-person interviews with housestaff physicians with qualitative analysis by a multi-disciplinary team using the constant comparative method to explore learning about high-quality discharge care as a systems-based practice and to identify opportunities to improve training around these concepts. RESULTS: We analyzed interview transcripts from 29 internal medicine residents: 17 (59 %) were interns (PGY-2 or PGY-3), 12 (41 %) seniors, and 17 (59 %) were female. We identified a recurrent theme of lack of formal training about the discharge process, substantial peer-to-peer instruction, and "learning by doing" on the wards. Within this theme, we identified five specific concepts related to systems-based practice and high-quality discharge care which residents learned during residency: (1) teamwork and the interdisciplinary nature of discharge planning; (2) advanced planning strategies to anticipate challenges in the discharge process; (3) patient safety and the concept of a "safe discharge;" (4) patient continuity of care and learning from post-discharge outcomes and; (5) documentation of discharge plans as a valuable skill. CONCLUSIONS: Discharge care is an overlooked opportunity to teach concepts of systems-based practice explicitly as learning about discharge care is unstructured and individual experiences may vary considerably. Educational interventions to standardize learning about discharge care may improve the development of systems-based practice during residency and help improve the overall quality of discharge care at teaching hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Improving hospital discharge has become a national priority for teaching hospitals, yet little is known about physician perspectives on factors limiting the quality of discharge care. OBJECTIVES: To describe the discharge process from the perspective of housestaff physicians, and to generate hypotheses about quality-limiting factors and key strategies for improvement. METHODS: Qualitative study with in-depth, in-person interviews with a diverse sample of 29 internal medicine housestaff, in 2010-2011, at 2 separate internal medicine training programs, including 7 different hospitals. We used the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis to explore the experiences and perceptions of factors affecting the quality of discharge care. RESULTS: We identified 5 unifying themes describing factors perceived to limit the quality of discharge care: (1) competing priorities in the discharge process; (2) inadequate coordination within multidisciplinary discharge teams; (3) lack of standardization in discharge procedures; (4) poor patient and family communication; and (5) lack of postdischarge feedback and clinical responsibility. CONCLUSIONS: Quality-limiting factors described by housestaff identified key processes for intervention. Establishment of clear standards for discharge procedures, including interdisciplinary teamwork, patient communication, and postdischarge continuity of care, may improve the quality of discharge care by housestaff at teaching hospitals. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2012; (c) 2012 Society of Hospital Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Advanced ("open") access scheduling, which promotes patient-driven scheduling in lieu of prearranged appointments, has been proposed as a more patient-centered appointment method and has been widely adopted throughout the United Kingdom, within the US Veterans Health Administration, and among US private practices. OBJECTIVE: To describe patient and physician and/or practice outcomes resulting from implementation of advanced access scheduling in the primary care setting. DATA SOURCES: Comprehensive search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science) through August, 2010, supplemented by reference lists and gray literature. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were assessed in duplicate, and reviewers were blinded to author, journal, and date of publication. Controlled and uncontrolled English-language studies of advanced access implementation in primary care were eligible if they specified methods and reported outcomes data. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers collaboratively assessed risk for bias by using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Risk of Bias criteria. Data were independently extracted in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-eight articles describing 24 studies met eligibility criteria. All studies had at least 1 source of potential bias. All 8 studies evaluating time to third-next-available appointment showed reductions (range of decrease, 1.1-32 days), but only 2 achieved a third-next-available appointment in less than 48 hours (25%). No-show rates improved only in practices with baseline no-show rates higher than 15%. Effects on patient satisfaction were variable. Limited data addressed clinical outcomes and loss to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Studies of advanced access support benefits to wait time and no-show rate. However, effects on patient satisfaction were mixed, and data about clinical outcomes and loss to follow-up were lacking.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of a computerized clinical decision-support system (CDSS) designed to support assessment and management of pediatric asthma in a subspecialty clinic. DESIGN: Cohort study of all asthma visits to pediatric pulmonology from January to December, 2009. MEASUREMENTS: CDSS and physician assessments of asthma severity, control, and treatment step. RESULTS: Both the clinician and the computerized CDSS generated assessments of asthma control in 767/1032 (74.3%) return patients, assessments of asthma severity in 100/167 (59.9%) new patients, and recommendations for treatment step in 66/167 (39.5%) new patients. Clinicians agreed with the CDSS in 543/767 (70.8%) of control assessments, 37/100 (37%) of severity assessments, and 19/66 (29%) of step recommendations. External review classified 72% of control disagreements (21% of all control assessments), 56% of severity disagreements (37% of all severity assessments), and 76% of step disagreements (54% of all step recommendations) as CDSS errors. The remaining disagreements resulted from pulmonologist error or ambiguous guidelines. Many CDSS flaws, such as attributing all 'cough' to asthma, were easily remediable. Pediatric pulmonologists failed to follow guidelines in 8% of return visits and 18% of new visits. LIMITATIONS: The authors relied on chart notes to determine clinical reasoning. Physicians may have changed their assessments after seeing CDSS recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: A computerized CDSS performed relatively accurately compared to clinicians for assessment of asthma control but was inaccurate for treatment. Pediatric pulmonologists failed to follow guideline-based care in a small proportion of patients.