Strategic Review Process for an Accountable Care Organization and Emerging Accountable Care Best Practices.

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), like other care entities, must be strategic about which initiatives they support in the quest for higher value. This article reviews the current strategic planning process for the Johns Hopkins Medicine Alliance for Patients (JMAP), a Medicare Shared Savings Program Track 1 ACO. It reviews the 3 focus areas for the 2017 strategic review process - (1) optimizing care coordination for complex, at-risk patients, (2) post-acute care, and (3) specialty care integration - reviewing cost savings and quality improvement opportunities, associated best practices from the literature, and opportunities to leverage and advance existing ACO and health system efforts in each area. It then reviews the ultimate selection of priorities for the coming year and early thoughts on implementation. After the robust review process, key stakeholders voted to select interventions targeted at care coordination, post-acute care, and specialty integration including Part B drug and imaging costs. The interventions selected incorporate a mixture of enhancing current ACO initiatives, working collaboratively and synergistically on other health system initiatives, and taking on new projects deemed targeted, cost-effective, and manageable in scope. The annual strategic review has been an essential and iterative process based on performance data and informed by the collective experience of other organizations. The process allows for an evidence-based strategic plan for the ACO in pursuit of the best care for patients.

Establishing an Ambulatory Medicine Quality and Safety Oversight Structure: Leveraging the Fractal Model.

PROBLEM: Academic health systems face challenges in the governance and oversight of quality and safety efforts across their organizations. Ambulatory practices, which are growing in number, size, and complexity, face particular challenges in these areas. APPROACH: In February 2014, leaders at Johns Hopkins Medicine (JHM) implemented a governance, oversight, and accountability structure for quality and safety efforts across JHM ambulatory practices. This model was based on the fractal approach, which balances independence and interdependence and provides horizontal and vertical support. It set expectations of accountability at all levels from the Board of Trustees to frontline staff and featured a cascading structure that reached all units and ambulatory practices. This model leveraged an Ambulatory Quality Council led by a physician and nurse dyad to provide the infrastructure to share best practices, continuously improve, and define accountable local leaders. OUTCOMES: This model was incorporated into the quality and safety infrastructure across JHM. Improved outcomes in the domains of patient safety/risk reduction, externally reported quality measures, patient care/experience, and value have been demonstrated. An additional benefit was an improvement in Medicaid value-based purchasing metrics, which are linked to several million dollars of revenue. NEXT STEPS: As this model matures, it will serve as a mechanism to align quality standards and programs across regional, national, and international partners and to provide a clear quality structure as new practices join the health system. Future efforts will link this model to JHM's academic mission, enhancing education to address Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies.

The effect of computerized provider order entry on medical students' ability to write orders.

BACKGROUND: Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) is being implemented at increasing numbers of U.S. hospitals, yet the effects of CPOE on medical student education are largely unstudied. PURPOSE: The objective is to investigate the effects of CPOE on medical students' ability to write orders for patients. METHODS: One hundred forty-three medical students who began their Basic Medicine clerkship between March 2003 and April 2004 were asked to write mock admission orders for a patient with pneumonia after the 1st month of their clerkship. Students had spent the month at 1 of 3 hospitals: 1 using CPOE, 1 paper orders, and 1 that began using CPOE midway through this study. Admission orders were scored for the presence of specific orders and features. RESULTS: One hundred twenty students attempted to write admission orders. Students who trained at hospitals using CPOE and those who trained at hospitals using paper orders included expected basic, lifesaving, and higher level orders at similar rates. No significant differences in order clarity or inclusion of unnecessary orders were found for the 2 groups. No significant differences were found when controlling for school year and 4 modifiable rotation features. CONCLUSIONS: When admission order completeness and quality for medical students who trained at hospitals using CPOE were compared to those who trained using handwritten orders, no important differences were found.

The intersection between clinical excellence and role modeling in medicine.

BACKGROUND: Role modeling is an integral component of medical education. The literature suggests that being a clinically excellent academic physician and serving as a role model for trainees are integrally related. PURPOSE: To explore the relationship between being considered clinically excellent and being considered an effective role model. METHODS: Two independent surveys were administered to clinically active faculty (asked to name clinically excellent colleagues) and internal medicine residents (asked to name faculty role models). We compared frequency counts of clinically excellent faculty mentioned and frequency counts of role models mentioned by respondents. Spearman correlations and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were used to assess the relationship between the responses. RESULTS: A total of 39 of 66 faculty (59%) and 45 of 50 residents (90%) responded. There were 31 faculty members judged to be clinically excellent and 67 faculty identified as role models. Thirty faculty members appeared on both lists. There was a moderately high correlation between these groups (Spearman correlation coefficient  =  0.54, P < .001). Faculty members who were among those named as clinically excellent by their peers were more likely to be named 3 or more times as a role model by trainees (odds ratio, 24.6; confidence interval, 2.9-207). CONCLUSIONS: This study tested and confirmed the correlation between clinical excellence and role modeling, illustrating the value of these faculty members at teaching hospitals.

Advantages and challenges of working as a clinician in an academic department of medicine: academic clinicians' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The provision of high-quality clinical care is critical to the mission of academic and nonacademic clinical settings and is of foremost importance to academic and nonacademic physicians. Concern has been increasingly raised that the rewards systems at most academic institutions may discourage those with a passion for clinical care over research or teaching from staying in academia. In addition to the advantages afforded by academic institutions, academic physicians may perceive important challenges, disincentives, and limitations to providing excellent clinical care. To better understand these views, we conducted a qualitative study to explore the perspectives of clinical faculty in prominent departments of medicine. METHODS: Between March and May 2007, 2 investigators conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 24 clinically excellent internal medicine physicians at 8 academic institutions across the nation. Transcripts were independently coded by 2 investigators and compared for agreement. Content analysis was performed to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: Twenty interviewees (83%) were associate professors or professors, 33% were women, and participants represented a wide range of internal medicine subspecialties. Mean time currently spent in clinical care by the physicians was 48%. Domains that emerged related to faculty's perception of clinical care in the academic setting included competing obligations, teamwork and collaboration, types of patients and productivity expectations, resources for clinical services, emphasis on discovery, and bureaucratic challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Expert clinicians at academic medical centers perceive barriers to providing excellent patient care related to competing demands on their time, competing academic missions, and bureaucratic challenges. They also believe there are differences in the types of patients seen in academic settings compared with those in the private sector, that there is a "public" nature in their clinical work, that productivity expectations are likely different from those of private practitioners, and that resource allocation both facilitates and limits excellent care in the academic setting. These findings have important implications for patients, learners, and faculty and academic leaders, and suggest challenges as well as opportunities in fostering clinical medicine at academic institutions.

Implications of academic medicine's failure to recognize clinical excellence.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the implications of inadequately recognizing clinical excellence in academia by exploring the perspectives of clinically excellent faculty within prominent American departments of medicine. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: 8 academic institutions. PARTICIPANTS: 24 clinically excellent department of medicine physicians. METHODS: Between March 1 and May 31, 2007, investigators conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 24 clinically excellent physicians at leading academic institutions. Interview transcripts were independently coded by two investigators and compared for agreement. Content analysis identified themes related to clinical excellence in academia. RESULTS: Twenty informants (83%) were Associate Professors or Professors, 8 (33%) were females, and the physicians hailed from a wide range of internal medicine specialties. The mean percent effort spent in clinical care by the physicians was 48%. The five domains that emerged related to academic medicine's failure to recognize clinical excellence were: (1) low morale and prestige among clinicians, (2) less than excellent patient care, (3) loss of talented clinicians, (4) a lack of commitment to improve patient care systems, and (5) fewer excellent clinician role models to inspire trainees. CONCLUSIONS: If academic medical centers fail to recognize clinical excellence among its physicians, they may be doing a disservice to the patients that they pledge to serve. It is hoped that initiatives aiming to measure clinical performance in our academic medical centers will translate into meaningful recognition for those achieving excellence such that outstanding clinicians may feel valued and decide to stay in academia.

Documentation of code status and discussion of goals of care in gravely ill hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Timely discussions about goals of care in critically ill patients have been shown to be important. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review over 2 years (2003-2004) of patients admitted to our medical service who were classified as "expected to die." Charts were evaluated for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) documentation and discussions of goals of care. Detailed chart reviews for demographic information, cause of death, site of death, length of stay, and duration of resuscitation attempt were performed. RESULTS: Of 497 charts identified, 434 (87.3%) had a DNR on file at the time of death. After exclusion of patients who died in less than 24 hours, 18 no-DNR charts remained. Seven noted a decision to continue aggressive care and 11 had no code status discussion documented. Younger patients and patients with cardiovascular disease were less likely to have a DNR. Resuscitation times were longer in the no-discussion group. All patients who died without a DNR died in the intensive care unit. Seventy-six percent of discussions were done by medicine housestaff. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall rate of DNR documentation was high, several trends emerged. Medicine housestaff in the intensive care unit would be a logical group to target for an educational intervention to address these discrepancies.

Pilot study comparing patients' valuation of health-care services with Medicare's relative value units.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Physician reimbursement for services and thus income are largely determined by the Medicare Resource-Based Relative Value Scale. Patients' assessment of the value of physician services has never been considered in the calculation. This study sought to compare patients' valuation of health-care services to Medicare's relative value unit (RVU) assessments and to discover patients' perceptions about the relative differences in incomes across physician specialties. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Individuals in select outpatient waiting areas at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. METHODS: Data collection included the use of a visual analog 'value scale' wherein participants assigned value to 10 specific physician-dependent health-care services. Informants were also asked to estimate the annualized incomes of physicians in specialties related to the above-mentioned services. Comparisons of (i) the 'patient valuation RVUs' with actual Medicare RVUs, and (ii) patients' estimations of physician income with actual income were explored using t-tests. OUTCOMES: Of the 206 eligible individuals, 186 (90%) agreed to participate. Participants assigned a significantly higher mean value to 7 of the 10 services compared with Medicare RVUs (P<0.001) and the range in values assigned by participants was much smaller than Medicare's (a factor of 2 vs. 22). With the exception of primary care, respondents estimated that physicians earn significantly less than their actual income (all P<0.001) and the differential across specialties was thought to be much smaller (estimate: $88,225, actual: $146,769). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, patients' estimations of the value health-care services were markedly different from the Medicare RVU system. Mechanisms for incorporating patients' valuation of services rendered by physicians may be warranted.

Clinical excellence in academia: perspectives from masterful academic clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand and characterize clinical excellence in academia by exploring the perspectives of clinically excellent faculty in the top American departments of medicine. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Between March 1 and May 31, 2007, 2 investigators conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 24 clinically excellent Department of Medicine physicians at 8 academic institutions. Interview transcripts were independently analyzed by 2 investigators and compared for agreement. Content analysis identified several major themes that relate to clinical excellence in academia. RESULTS: Physicians hailed from a range of internal medicine specialties; 20 (83%) were associate professors or professors and 8 (33%) were women. The mean percentage of time physicians spent in clinical care was 48%. Eight domains emerged as the major features of clinical excellence in academia: reputation, communication and interpersonal skills, professionalism and humanism, diagnostic acumen, skillful negotiation of the health care system, knowledge, scholarly approach to clinical care, and passion for clinical medicine. CONCLUSION: Understanding the core elements that contribute to clinical excellence in academia represents a pivotal step to defining clinical excellence in this setting. It is hoped that such work will lead to initiatives aimed at measuring and rewarding clinical excellence in our academic medical centers such that the most outstanding clinicians feel valued and decide to stay in academia to serve as role models for medical trainees.

Do fears of malpractice litigation influence teaching behaviors?

BACKGROUND: Medical malpractice is prominently positioned in the consciousness of American physicians, and the perceived threat of malpractice litigation may push physicians to practice defensively and alter their teaching behaviors. PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to characterize the attitudes of academic medical faculty toward malpractice litigation and to identify teaching behaviors associated with fear of malpractice litigation. METHODS: We surveyed 270 full-time clinically active physicians in the Department of Medicine at a large academic medical center. The survey assessed physicians' attitudes toward malpractice issues, fear of malpractice litigation, and self-reported teaching behaviors associated with concerns about litigation. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifteen physicians responded (80%). Faculty scored an average of 25.5 +/- 6.9 (range = 6-42, higher scores indicate greater fear) on a reliable malpractice fear scale. Younger age (Spearman's rho = 0.19, p = .02) and greater time spent in clinical activities (rho = 0.26, p < .001) were correlated with higher scores on the Malpractice Fear Scale. Faculty reported that because of the perceived prevalence of lawsuits and claims made against physicians, they spend more time writing clinical notes for patients seen by learners (74%), give learners less autonomy in patient care (44%), and limit opportunities for learners to perform clinical procedures (32%) and deliver bad news to patients (33%). Faculty with higher levels of fear on the Malpractice Fear Scale were more likely to report changing their teaching behaviors because of this perceived threat (rho = 0.38, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians report changes in teaching behaviors because of concerns about malpractice litigation. Although concerns about malpractice may promote increased supervision and positive role modeling, they may also limit important educational opportunities for learners. These results may serve to heighten awareness to the fact that teaching behaviors and decisions may be influenced by the malpractice climate.

Health care utilization and the proportion of primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: The impact of primary care physicians on health care utilization remains controversial. Some have hypothesized that primary care physicians decrease health care utilization through enhanced coordination of care and a preventive care focus. METHODS: Using data from the Area Resource File (a Health Resources and Services Administration US county-level database) for the years 1990, 1995, and 1999, we performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis with generalized estimating equations to determine if measures of health care utilization (inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, emergency department visits, and surgeries) were associated with the proportion of primary care physicians to total physicians within metropolitan statistical areas. RESULTS: The average proportion of primary care physicians in each metropolitan statistical area was 0.34 (SD 0.46, range 0.20-0.54). Higher proportions of primary care physicians were associated with significantly decreased utilization, with each 1% increase in proportion of primary care physicians associated with decreased yearly utilization for an average-sized metropolitan statistical area of 503 admissions, 2968 emergency department visits, and 512 surgeries (all P <.03). These relationships were consistent each year studied. CONCLUSIONS: Increased proportions of primary care physicians appear to be associated with significant decreases in measures of health care utilization across the 1990s. National efforts aimed at limiting health care utilization may benefit from focusing on the proportion of primary care physicians relative to specialists in this country.

Discharging patients earlier in the day: a concept worth evaluating.

Patient discharges from the hospital often occur late in the day and are frequently clustered after 4 PM. When inpatients leave earlier in the day, quality is improved because new admissions awaiting beds are able to leave the emergency department sooner and emergency department waiting room backlog is reduced. Nursing staff, whose work patterns traditionally result in high activity of discharge and admission between 5 PM and 8 PM, benefit by spreading out their work across a longer part of the day. Discharging patients earlier in the day also has the potential to increase patient satisfaction. Despite multiple stakeholders in the discharge planning process, physicians play the most important role. Getting physician buy-in requires an ability to teach physicians about the concept of early-in-the-day discharges and their impact on the process. We defined a new physician-centered discharge planning process and introduced it to an internal medicine team with an identical control team as a comparison. Discharge time of day was analyzed for 1 month. Mean time of day of discharge was 13:39 for the intervention group versus 15:45 for the control group (P<.001). If reproduced successfully, this process could improve quality at an important transition point in patient care.

The good news about CPOE and medical student ordering ability.

When the quality of orders written by medical students was compared for those who trained at hospitals using computerized provider order entry (CPOE) to those who trained using handwritten orders, no significant differences were found.

Morbidity and mortality conference, grand rounds, and the ACGME's core competencies.

Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) Conferences are an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandated educational series that occur regularly at all institutions that have residency training programs. The potential for learning from medical errors, complications, and unanticipated outcomes is immense--provided that the focus is on education, as opposed to culpability. The education innovation described in this manuscript is the manner in which we have used the ACGME Outcome Project's 6 core competencies as the structure upon which the cases discussed at our M&M conference are framed. When presented at grand rounds in a novel format, M&M conference has not only maintained support for the quality improvement efforts in the Department, but has served to improve the educational impact of the conference.

Facing the malpractice crisis: academic physicians' willingness to accept quick fix solutions.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the willingness of academic physicians to accept strategies to contain institutional malpractice costs. METHODS: We surveyed all 270 Department of Medicine physicians at a large academic center. Respondents were asked about their knowledge regarding malpractice premiums, willingness to reduce patient-care activities and accept decreases in compensation. RESULTS: The response rate was 80%. Respondents estimated the annual increase in malpractice premiums from 2004 to 2005 to be 29%. The true increase was 28% (P = 0.55). Almost all opposed eliminating patient care (95%) or providing patient care every other year at double effort and withdrawing from patient care on alternate years (97%). Seventy percent would limit their clinical procedures. Most physicians opposed salary reduction (97%) or decreases in fringe benefits (99%). CONCLUSIONS: Few academic physicians are willing to limit patient care or accept decreases in compensation to recoup institutional malpractice costs.

The effect of computerized provider order entry on medical student clerkship experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To describe medical students' attitudes toward placing orders during training, and the effect of computerized provider order entry (CPOE) on their learning experiences. DESIGN: Prospective, controlled study of all 143 Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine students who began the Basic Medicine clerkship between March 2003 and April 2004 at one of three teaching hospitals: one using CPOE, one paper orders, and one that began using CPOE midway through this study. MEASUREMENTS: Survey of students at the start and after the first month of the clerkship. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent of students responded. Students expressed a desire to place 100% of orders for their patients. Ninety-five percent of students believed that placing orders helps students learn what tests and treatments patients need. Eighty-four percent reported that being unavailable due to conferences and teaching sessions was a significant barrier to participating in the ordering process. Students at hospitals using CPOE reported placing significantly fewer of their patients' follow-up orders compared to students at hospitals using paper orders (25% vs. 50%, p < 0.01) and were more likely to report that their resident or intern did not want them to enter orders (40% vs. 16%, p < 0.01). Comparisons of students at hospitals using CPOE to each other showed that these differences were attributable to one of the hospitals. Thirty-two percent of students at both hospitals using CPOE reported that the extra length of time required for housestaff to review their orders in the computer was a significant barrier. CONCLUSION: Hospitals need to ensure that the educational potential of medical students' clinical experiences is maximized when implementing CPOE.