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

Providing education on evidence-based practice improved knowledge but did not change behaviour: a before and after study

BACKGROUND: Many health professionals lack the skills to find and appraise published research. This lack of skills and associated knowledge needs to be addressed, and practice habits need to change, for evidence-based practice to occur. The aim of this before and after study was to evaluate the effect of a multifaceted intervention on the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour of allied health professionals. METHODS: 114 self-selected occupational therapists were recruited. The intervention included a 2-day workshop combined with outreach support for eight months. Support involved email and telephone contact and a workplace visit. Measures were collected at baseline, post-workshop, and eight months later. The primary outcome was knowledge, measured using the Adapted Fresno Test of Evidence-Based Practice (total score 0 to 156). Secondary outcomes were attitude to evidence-based practice (% reporting improved skills and confidence; % reporting barriers), and behaviour measured using an activity diary (% engaging/not engaging in search and appraisal activities), and assignment completion. RESULTS: Post-workshop, there were significant gains in knowledge which were maintained at follow-up. The mean difference in the Adapted Fresno Test total score was 20.6 points (95% CI, 15.6 to 25.5). The change from post-workshop to follow-up was small and non-significant (mean difference 1.2 points, 95% CI, -6.0 to 8.5). Fewer participants reported lack of searching and appraisal skills as barriers to evidence-based practice over time (searching = 61%, 53%, 24%; appraisal 60%, 65%, 41%). These differences were statistically significant (p = 0.0001 and 0.010 respectively). Behaviour changed little. Pre-workshop, 6% engaged in critical appraisal increasing to 18% post-workshop and 18% at follow-up. Nearly two thirds (60%) were not reading any research literature at follow-up. Twenty-three participants (20.2%) completed their assignment. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based practice skills and knowledge improved markedly with a targetted education intervention and outreach support. However, changes in behaviour were small, based on the frequency of searching and appraisal activities. Allied health educators should focus more on post-workshop skill development, particularly appraisal, and help learners to establish new routines and priorities around evidence-based practice. Learners also need to know that behaviour change of this nature may take months, even years

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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2100-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Postinterview communication between military residency applicants and training programs

Purpose: Each year military medical students participate in a separate, military match culminating with the Joint Services Graduate Medical Education Selection Board (JSGMESB). Prior studies have explored postinterview communication that occurs during the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP), but not during the JSGMESB. We examined the frequency and nature of communication during the JSGMESB and compared it with the NRMP. Methods: Cross-sectional survey study of senior students conducted at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU) and seven civilian U.S. medical schools during March to May 2010. Respondents answered questions regarding communication with residency programs during the match. Results: Significantly fewer USU respondents communicated with programs compared with the civilian cohort (54.1% vs. 86.4%, p \u3c 0.01). Specific inquiries regarding rank order were more commonly experienced by USU respondents compared with civilians (17.5% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.02). USU respondents found postinterview communication both helpful (41.3%) and stressful (41.3%). 11.1% of USU respondents indicated that they moved a program higher on their final rank lists because of further communication with these programs. Conclusions: Postinterview communication during the JSGMESB process is less common and less stressful than that reported in the NRMP. USU respondents are more likely to be asked directly about their rank list and occasionally do change their lists. Uniform guidance mirroring the NRMP\u27s dealing with direct inquiries about rank lists could potentially improve the process. © Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S. All rights reserved