Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To assess relationships between primary care work conditions, physician burnout, quality of care, and medical errors. METHODS: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of data from the MEMO (Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcome) Study. Two surveys of 422 family physicians and general internists, administered 1 year apart, queried physician job satisfaction, stress and burnout, organizational culture, and intent to leave within 2 years. A chart audit of 1795 of their adult patients with diabetes and/or hypertension assessed care quality and medical errors. KEY RESULTS: Women physicians were almost twice as likely as men to report burnout (36% vs 19%, P < .001). Burned out clinicians reported less satisfaction (P < .001), more job stress (P < .001), more time pressure during visits (P < .01), more chaotic work conditions (P < .001), and less work control (P < .001). Their workplaces were less likely to emphasize work-life balance (P < .001) and they noted more intent to leave the practice (56% vs 21%, P < .001). There were no consistent relationships between burnout, care quality, and medical errors. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout is highly associated with adverse work conditions and a greater intention to leave the practice, but not with adverse patient outcomes. Care quality thus appears to be preserved at great personal cost to primary care physicians. Efforts focused on workplace redesign and physician self-care are warranted to sustain the primary care workforce.

BACKGROUND: Panel Management can expand prevention and chronic illness management beyond the office visit, but there is limited evidence for its effectiveness or guidance on how best to incorporate it into practice. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to test the effectiveness of incorporating panel management into clinical practice by incorporating Panel Management Assistants (PMAs) into primary care teams with and without panel management education. DESIGN: We conducted an 8-month cluster-randomized controlled trial of panel management for improving hypertension and smoking cessation outcomes among veterans. PATRICIPANTS: Twenty primary care teams from the Veterans Affairs New York Harbor were randomized to control, panel management support, or panel management support plus education groups. Teams included 69 clinical staff serving 8,153 hypertensive and/or smoking veterans. INTERVENTIONS: Teams assigned to the intervention groups worked with non-clinical Panel Management Assistants (PMAs) who monitored care gaps and conducted proactive patient outreach, including referrals, mail reminders and motivational interviewing by telephone. MAIN MEASURES: Measurements included mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure, proportion of patients with controlled blood pressure, self-reported quit attempts, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) prescriptions, and referrals to disease management services. KEY RESULTS: Change in mean blood pressure, blood pressure control, and smoking quit rates were similar across study groups. Patients on intervention teams were more likely to receive NRT (OR = 1.4; 95 % CI 1.2-1.6) and enroll in the disease management services MOVE! (OR = 1.2; 95 % CI 1.1-1.6) and Telehealth (OR = 1.7, 95 % CI 1.4-2.1) than patients on control teams. CONCLUSIONS: Panel Management support for primary care teams improved process, but not outcome variables among veterans with hypertension and smoking. Incorporating PMAs into teams was feasible and highly valued by the clinical staff, but clinical impact may require a longer intervention.

BACKGROUND: Medical and public health scientists are using evolution to devise new strategies to solve major health problems. But based on a 2003 survey, medical curricula may not adequately prepare physicians to evaluate and extend these advances. This study assessed the change in coverage of evolution in North American medical schools since 2003 and identified opportunities for enriching medical education. METHODS: In 2013, curriculum deans for all North American medical schools were invited to rate curricular coverage and perceived importance of 12 core principles, the extent of anticipated controversy from adding evolution, and the usefulness of 13 teaching resources. Differences between schools were assessed by Pearson's chi-square test, Student's t-test, and Spearman's correlation. Open-ended questions sought insight into perceived barriers and benefits. RESULTS: Despite repeated follow-up, 60 schools (39%) responded to the survey. There was no evidence of sample bias. The three evolutionary principles rated most important were antibiotic resistance, environmental mismatch, and somatic selection in cancer. While importance and coverage of principles were correlated (r = 0.76, P < 0.01), coverage (at least moderate) lagged behind importance (at least moderate) by an average of 21% (SD = 6%). Compared to 2003, a range of evolutionary principles were covered by 4 to 74% more schools. Nearly half (48%) of responders anticipated igniting controversy at their medical school if they added evolution to their curriculum. The teaching resources ranked most useful were model test questions and answers, case studies, and model curricula for existing courses/rotations. Limited resources (faculty expertise) were cited as the major barrier to adding more evolution, but benefits included a deeper understanding and improved patient care. CONCLUSION: North American medical schools have increased the evolution content in their curricula over the past decade. However, coverage is not commensurate with importance. At a few medical schools, anticipated controversy impedes teaching more evolution. Efforts to improve evolution education in medical schools should be directed toward boosting faculty expertise and crafting resources that can be easily integrated into existing curricula.