Relationships of the Location and Content of Rounds to Specialty, Institution, Patient-Census, and Team Size

OBJECTIVE: Existing observational data describing rounds in teaching hospitals are 15 years old, predate duty-hour regulations, are limited to one institution, and do not include pediatrics. We sought to evaluate the effect of medical specialty, institution, patient-census, and team participants upon time at the bedside and education occurring on rounds. METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS: Between December of 2007 and October of 2008 we performed 51 observations at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Seattle Children's Hospital, Stanford University Hospital, and the University of Washington Medical Center of 35 attending physicians. We recorded minutes spent on rounds in three location and seven activity categories, members of the care team, and patient-census. RESULTS: Results presented are means. Pediatric rounds had more participants (8.2 vs. 4.1 physicians, p<.001; 11.9 vs. 2.4 non-physicians, p<.001) who spent more minutes in hallways (96.9 min vs. 35.2 min, p<.001), fewer minutes at the bedside (14.6 vs. 38.2 min, p = .01) than internal medicine rounds. Multivariate regression modeling revealed that minutes at the bedside per patient was negatively associated with pediatrics (-2.77 adjusted bedside minutes; 95% CI -4.61 to -0.93; p<.001) but positively associated with the number of non-physician participants (0.12 adjusted bedside minutes per non physician participant; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17; p = <.001). Education minutes on rounds was positively associated with the presence of an attending physician (2.70 adjusted education minutes; 95% CI 1.27 to 4.12; p<.001) and with one institution (1.39 adjusted education minutes; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.53; p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatricians spent less time at the bedside on rounds than internal medicine physicians due to reasons other than patient-census or the number of participants in rounds. Compared to historical data, internal medicine rounds were spent more at the bedside engaged in patient care and communication, and less upon educational activities

Does Cultural Competency Training of Health Professionals Improve Patient Outcomes? A Systematic Review and Proposed Algorithm for Future Research

BACKGROUND: Cultural competency training has been proposed as a way to improve patient outcomes. There is a need for evidence showing that these interventions reduce health disparities. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to conduct a systematic review addressing the effects of cultural competency training on patient-centered outcomes; assess quality of studies and strength of effect; and propose a framework for future research. DESIGN: The authors performed electronic searches in the MEDLINE/PubMed, ERIC, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science databases for original articles published in English between 1990 and 2010, and a bibliographic hand search. Studies that reported cultural competence educational interventions for health professionals and measured impact on patients and/or health care utilization as primary or secondary outcomes were included. MEASUREMENTS: Four authors independently rated studies for quality using validated criteria and assessed the training effect on patient outcomes. Due to study heterogeneity, data were not pooled; instead, qualitative synthesis and analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. Three involved physicians, two involved mental health professionals and two involved multiple health professionals and students. Two were quasi-randomized, two were cluster randomized, and three were pre/post field studies. Study quality was low to moderate with none of high quality; most studies did not adequately control for potentially confounding variables. Effect size ranged from no effect to moderately beneficial (unable to assess in two studies). Three studies reported positive (beneficial) effects; none demonstrated a negative (harmful) effect. CONCLUSION: There is limited research showing a positive relationship between cultural competency training and improved patient outcomes, but there remains a paucity of high quality research. Future work should address challenges limiting quality. We propose an algorithm to guide educators in designing and evaluating curricula, to rigorously demonstrate the impact on patient outcomes and health disparities

Disclosure and rationality: Comparative risk information and decision-making about prevention

With the growing focus on prevention in medicine, studies of how to describe risk have become increasing important. Recently, some researchers have argued against giving patients "comparative risk information," such as data about whether their baseline risk of developing a particular disease is above or below average. The concern is that giving patients this information will interfere with their consideration of more relevant data, such as the specific chance of getting the disease (the "personal risk"), the risk reduction the treatment provides, and any possible side effects. I explore this view and the theories of rationality that ground it, and I argue instead that comparative risk information can play a positive role in decision-making. The criticism of disclosing this sort of information to patients, I conclude, rests on a mistakenly narrow account of the goals of prevention and the nature of rational choice in medicine

Listening in on difficult conversations: an observational, multi-center investigation of real-time conversations in medical oncology

BACKGROUND: The quality of communication in medical care has been shown to influence health outcomes. Cancer patients, a highly diverse population, communicate with their clinical care team in diverse ways over the course of their care trajectory. Whether that communication happens and how effective it is may relate to a variety of factors including the type of cancer and the patient’s position on the cancer care continuum. Yet, many of the routine needs of cancer patients after initial cancer treatment are often not addressed adequately. Our goal is to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement in cancer communication by investigating real-time cancer consultations in a cross section of patient-clinician interactions at diverse study sites. METHODS/DESIGN: In this paper we describe the rationale and approach for an ongoing observational study involving three institutions that will utilize quantitative and qualitative methods and employ a short-term longitudinal, prospective follow-up component to investigate decision-making, key topics, and clinician-patient-companion communication dynamics in clinical oncology. DISCUSSION: Through a comprehensive, real-time approach, we hope to provide the fundamental groundwork from which to promote improved patient-centered communication in cancer care

Relationships of the location and content of rounds to specialty, institution, patient-census, and team size.

ObjectiveExisting observational data describing rounds in teaching hospitals are 15 years old, predate duty-hour regulations, are limited to one institution, and do not include pediatrics. We sought to evaluate the effect of medical specialty, institution, patient-census, and team participants upon time at the bedside and education occurring on rounds.Methods and participantsBetween December of 2007 and October of 2008 we performed 51 observations at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Seattle Children's Hospital, Stanford University Hospital, and the University of Washington Medical Center of 35 attending physicians. We recorded minutes spent on rounds in three location and seven activity categories, members of the care team, and patient-census.ResultsResults presented are means. Pediatric rounds had more participants (8.2 vs. 4.1 physicians, p&lt;.001; 11.9 vs. 2.4 non-physicians, p&lt;.001) who spent more minutes in hallways (96.9 min vs. 35.2 min, p&lt;.001), fewer minutes at the bedside (14.6 vs. 38.2 min, p = .01) than internal medicine rounds. Multivariate regression modeling revealed that minutes at the bedside per patient was negatively associated with pediatrics (-2.77 adjusted bedside minutes; 95% CI -4.61 to -0.93; p&lt;.001) but positively associated with the number of non-physician participants (0.12 adjusted bedside minutes per non physician participant; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17; p = &lt;.001). Education minutes on rounds was positively associated with the presence of an attending physician (2.70 adjusted education minutes; 95% CI 1.27 to 4.12; p&lt;.001) and with one institution (1.39 adjusted education minutes; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.53; p = .02).ConclusionsPediatricians spent less time at the bedside on rounds than internal medicine physicians due to reasons other than patient-census or the number of participants in rounds. Compared to historical data, internal medicine rounds were spent more at the bedside engaged in patient care and communication, and less upon educational activities

Measuring Value in Internal Medicine Residency Training Hospitals Using Publicly Reported Measures.

Graduate medical education (GME) lacks measures of resident preparation for high-quality, cost-conscious practice. The authors used publicly reported teaching hospital value measures to compare internal medicine residency programs on high-value care training and to validate these measures against program director perceptions of value. Program-level value training scores were constructed using Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program hospital quality and cost-efficiency data. Correlations with Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine Annual Survey high-value care training measures were examined using logistic regression. For every point increase in program-level VBP score, residency directors were more likely to agree that GME programs have a responsibility to contain health care costs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.18, P = .04), their faculty model high-value care (aOR 1.07, P = .03), and residents are prepared to make high-value medical decisions (aOR 1.07, P = .09). Publicly reported clinical data offer valid measures of GME value training

Measuring Value in Internal Medicine Residency Training Hospitals Using Publicly Reported Measures.

Graduate medical education (GME) lacks measures of resident preparation for high-quality, cost-conscious practice. The authors used publicly reported teaching hospital value measures to compare internal medicine residency programs on high-value care training and to validate these measures against program director perceptions of value. Program-level value training scores were constructed using Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program hospital quality and cost-efficiency data. Correlations with Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine Annual Survey high-value care training measures were examined using logistic regression. For every point increase in program-level VBP score, residency directors were more likely to agree that GME programs have a responsibility to contain health care costs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.18, P = .04), their faculty model high-value care (aOR 1.07, P = .03), and residents are prepared to make high-value medical decisions (aOR 1.07, P = .09). Publicly reported clinical data offer valid measures of GME value training