Impact of a brief faculty training to improve patient-centered communication while using electronic health records

Objective Despite rapid EHR adoption, few faculty receive training in how to implement patient-centered communication skills while using computers in exam rooms. We piloted a patient-centered EHR use training to address this issue. Methods Faculty received four hours of training at Cleveland Clinic and a condensed 90-minute version at the University of Chicago. Both included a lecture and a Group-Objective Structured Clinical Exam (GOSCE) experience. Direct observations of 10 faculty in their clinical practices were performed pre- and post-workshop. Results Thirty participants (94%) completed a post-workshop evaluation assessing knowledge, attitude, and skills. Faculty reported that training was important, relevant, and should be required for all providers; no differences were found between longer versus shorter training. Participants in the longer training reported higher GOSCE efficacy, however shorter workshop participants agreed more with the statement that they had gained new knowledge. Faculty improved their patient-centered EHR use skills in clinical practice on post- versus pre-workshop ratings using a validated direct-observation rating tool. Conclusion A brief lecture and GOSCE can be effective in training busy faculty on patient-centered EHR use skills. Practice Implications Faculty training on patient-centered EHR skills can enhance patient-doctor communication and promotes positive role modeling of these skills to learners

Comparative assessment of content overlap between written documentation and verbal communication: An observational study of resident sign-outs

OBJECTIVE: Effective sign-outs involve verbal communication supported by written or electronic documentation. We investigated the clinical content overlap between sign-out documentation and face-to-face verbal sign-out communication. METHODS: We audio-recorded resident verbal sign-out communication and collected electronically completed ( written ) sign-out documentation on 44 sign-outs in a General Medicine service. A content analysis framework with nine sign-out elements was used to qualitatively code both written and verbal sign-out content. A content overlap framework based on the comparative analysis between written and verbal sign-out content characterized how much written content was verbally communicated. Using this framework, we computed the full, partial, and no overlap between written and verbal content. RESULTS: We found high a high degree of full overlap on patient identifying information [name (present in 100% of sign-outs), age (96%), and gender (87%)], past medical history [hematology (100%), renal (100%), cardiology (79%), and GI (67%)], and tasks to-do (97%); lesser degree of overlap for active problems (46%), anticipatory guidance (46%), medications/treatments (15%), pending labs/studies/procedures (7%); and no overlap for code status (\u3c1%), allergies (0%) and medical record number (0%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Three core functions of sign-outs are transfer of information, responsibility, and accountability. The overlap-highlighting what written content was communicated-characterizes how these functions manifest during sign-outs. Transfer of information varied with patient identifying information being explicitly communicated and remaining content being inconsistently communicated. Transfer of responsibility was explicit, with all pending and future tasks being communicated. Transfer of accountability was limited, with limited discussion of written contingency plans

Outcomes for Resident-Identified High-Risk Patients and Resident Perspectives of Year-End Continuity Clinic Handoffs

BACKGROUND: Many patients nationwide change their primary care physician (PCP) when internal medicine (IM) residents graduate. Few studies have examined this handoff. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient outcomes and resident perspectives after the year-end continuity clinic handoff DESIGN: Retrospective cohort PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent a year-end clinic handoff in July 2010 and a comparison group of all other resident clinic patients from 2009-2011. PGY2 IM residents surveyed from 2010-2011. MEASUREMENTS: Percent of high-risk patients after the clinic handoff scheduled for an appointment, who saw their assigned PCP, lost to follow-up, or had an acute visit (ED or hospitalization). Perceptions of PGY2 IM residents surveyed after receiving a clinic handoff. RESULTS: Thirty graduating residents identified 258 high-risk patients. While nearly all patients (97 %) were scheduled, 29 % missed or cancelled their first new PCP visit. Only 44 % of patients saw the correct PCP and six months later, one-fifth were lost to follow-up. Patients not seen by a new PCP after the handoff were less likely to have appropriate follow-up for pending tests (0 % vs. 63 %, P<0.001). A higher mean no show rate (NSR) was observed among patients who missed their first new PCP visit (22 % vs. 16 % NSR, p<0.001) and those lost to follow-up (21 % vs. 17 % NSR, p=0.019). While 47 % of residents worried about missing important data during the handoff, 47 % reported that they do not perceive patients as "theirs" until they are seen by them in clinic. CONCLUSIONS: While most patients were scheduled for appointments after a clinic handoff, many did not see the correct resident and one-fifth were lost to follow-up. Patients who miss appointments are especially at risk of poor clinic handoff outcomes. Future efforts should improve patient attendance to their first new PCP visit and increase PCP ownership

Survey of overnight academic hospitalist supervision of trainees

In 2003, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) announced the first in a series of guidelines related to the residency training. The most recent recommendations include explicit recommendations regarding the provision of on‐site clinical supervision for trainees of internal medicine. To meet these standards, many internal medicine residency programs turned to hospitalist programs to fill that need. However, much is unknown about the current relationships between hospitalist and residency programs, specifically with regard to supervisory roles and supervision policies. We aimed to describe how academic hospitalists currently supervise housestaff during the on‐call, or overnight, period and hospitalist program leader their perceptions of how these new policies would impact trainee‐hospitalist interactions. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2012; © 2012 Society of Hospital MedicinePeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/93713/1/1961_ftp.pd

Association of Communication Between Hospital-based Physicians and Primary Care Providers with Patient Outcomes

Background: Patients admitted to general medicine inpatient services are increasingly cared for by hospital-based physicians rather than their primary care providers (PCPs). This separation of hospital and ambulatory care may result in important care discontinuities after discharge. We sought to determine whether communication between hospital-based physicians and PCPs influences patient outcomes. Methods: We approached consecutive patients admitted to general medicine services at six US academic centers from July 2001 to June 2003. A random sample of the PCPs for consented patients was contacted 2 weeks after patient discharge and surveyed about communication with the hospital medical team. Responses were linked with the 30-day composite patient outcomes of mortality, hospital readmission, and emergency department (ED) visits obtained through follow-up telephone survey and National Death Index search. We used hierarchical multi-variable logistic regression to model whether communication with the patient’s PCP was associated with the 30-day composite outcome. Results: A total of 1,772 PCPs for 2,336 patients were surveyed with 908 PCPs responses and complete patient follow-up available for 1,078 patients. The PCPs for 834 patients (77%) were aware that their patient had been admitted to the hospital. Of these, direct communication between PCPs and inpatient physicians took place for 194 patients (23%), and a discharge summary was available within 2 weeks of discharge for 347 patients (42%). Within 30 days of discharge, 233 (22%) patients died, were readmitted to the hospital, or visited an ED. In adjusted analyses, no relationship was seen between the composite outcome and direct physician communication (adjusted odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.56 – 1.34), the presence of a discharge summary (0.84, 95% CI 0.57–1.22), or PCP awareness of the index hospitalization (1.08, 95% CI 0.73–1.59). Conclusion: Analysis of communication between PCPs and inpatient medical teams revealed much room for improvement. Although communication during handoffs of care is important, we were not able to find a relationship between several aspects of communication and associated adverse clinical outcomes in this multi-center patient sample

Equipping Health Professions Educators to Better Address Medical Misinformation

As part of a cooperative agreement with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Federal Award Identification Number [FAIN]: NU50CK000586), the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) began a strategic initiative in 2022 both to increase confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and to address medical misinformation and mistrust through education in health professions contexts. Specifically, the AAMC solicited proposals for integrating competency-based, interprofessional strategies to mitigate health misinformation into new or existing curricula. Five Health Professions Education Curricular Innovations subgrantees received support from the AAMC in 2022 and reflected on the implementation of their ideas in a series of meetings over several months. Subgrantees included the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, the Maine Medical Center/Tufts University School of Medicine, and the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. This paper comprises insights from each of the teams and overarching observations regarding the challenges and opportunities involved with leveraging health professions education to address medical misinformation and improve patient health

Hospital Readmission in General Medicine Patients: A Prediction Model

Background: Previous studies of hospital readmission have focused on specific conditions or populations and generated complex prediction models. Objective: To identify predictors of early hospital readmission in a diverse patient population and derive and validate a simple model for identifying patients at high readmission risk. Design: Prospective observational cohort study. Patients: Participants encompassed 10,946 patients discharged home from general medicine services at six academic medical centers and were randomly divided into derivation (n = 7,287) and validation (n = 3,659) cohorts. Measurements: We identified readmissions from administrative data and 30-day post-discharge telephone follow-up. Patient-level factors were grouped into four categories: sociodemographic factors, social support, health condition, and healthcare utilization. We performed logistic regression analysis to identify significant predictors of unplanned readmission within 30 days of discharge and developed a scoring system for estimating readmission risk. Results: Approximately 17.5% of patients were readmitted in each cohort. Among patients in the derivation cohort, seven factors emerged as significant predictors of early readmission: insurance status, marital status, having a regular physician, Charlson comorbidity index, SF12 physical component score, ≥1 admission(s) within the last year, and current length of stay >2 days. A cumulative risk score of ≥25 points identified 5% of patients with a readmission risk of approximately 30% in each cohort. Model discrimination was fair with a c-statistic of 0.65 and 0.61 for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Conclusions: Select patient characteristics easily available shortly after admission can be used to identify a subset of patients at elevated risk of early readmission. This information may guide the efficient use of interventions to prevent readmission