Navigating a Pandemic: The Unique Role of the Medical Director.

The sudden emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 presented a unique challenge for medical directors of life insurance companies. Company leadership required quick answers about many issues, but two in particular: 1) the magnitude of the pandemic's impact on the insured lives portfolio and 2) the underwriting of new applicants during a pandemic. This article will describe the experiences of a global team of reinsurance medical directors during a pandemic. It may also serve to provide guidance for medical directors facing a similar challenge in the future.

Paediatric intensive care follow-up provision in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland.

The objective of this study was to examine the characteristic, content, and role of Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs) in the provision of follow-up for children and their families' post-intensive care discharge in the United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland (RoI). The study followed a descriptive self-reported, web-based survey design. "In-hospital PICU follow-up" was defined as follow-up delivered by the PICU team following PICU discharge but before hospital discharge and "post-discharge PICU follow-up" was defined as follow-up delivered by the PICU team following hospital discharge. The survey was administered to all 28 PICUs in the UK and RoI. Paediatric intensive care medical directors or delegated individuals participated. Data were collected between September 2017 and January 2018 with a response rate of 79% (n = 22/28). Twelve units provided either in-hospital and/or post-discharge PICU follow-up. Ten (45%) PICUs reported providing in-hospital follow-up, with half (n = 5) using an eligibility criteria for in-hospital follow-up, which related to disease groups. The most frequently reported form of in-hospital PICU follow-up consisted of face-to-face patient consultation (n = 8) by a PICU doctor (n = 5) and/or nurse (n = 4). The time at which initial contact was made was usually not predetermined (n = 4) and the assessment of care needs included are tracheostomy care (n = 4), respiratory care (n = 4), and sedative medication weaning plan (n = 5). Four PICUs reported to provide post-discharge follow-up. This involved telephone (n = 2), follow-up clinic consultations (n = 1) or home visits (n = 1), provided predominantly by PICU doctors (n = 2), with their activity directed by patient needs (n = 3). Despite increasing evidence to suggest PICU survivors and their families experience negative sequalae post-PICU discharge, less than half of PICUs surveyed provide in-hospital follow-up and only a minority provide post-discharge follow-up. There is variation in the delivery, content, and format of in-hospital and post-discharge PICU follow-up in the UK and RoI.

Disparate opinions on the value of Vice Chairs of education in Departments of Surgery: A national survey of Department Chairs and other surgical education stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: The position of Vice Chair of Education (VCE) is increasingly common in Surgery Departments. The role remains ill-defined. The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of Department Chairs (DCs) and Other Education Stakeholders (OESs) regarding the VCE role. METHODS: DCs and OESs at institutions with a VCE were surveyed. Descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations were calculated (SAS V9.4). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 25% (166/666). There were significant differences in whether DCs and OESs agree that the VCE supports others in fulfilling educational roles (95.2% vs 49.5%, p = 0.0002), is critical in achieving education missions (90.5% vs 56.6%, p = 0.0032), enhances the quality of education (95.3% vs 65.7%, p = 0.0174), and is important to education teams (95.0% vs 68.7%, p = 0.0464). CONCLUSIONS: DCs value the VCE role more so than OESs, whom VCEs support. In order for VCEs to be effective educational leaders in Departments of Surgery, the needs of key stakeholders deserve further clarification.

Leading by Design: Lessons for the Future From 25 Years of the Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine (ELAM) Program for Women.

The Hedwig van Ameringen Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine (ELAM) Program for Women is designed to promote the careers of senior female leaders in academic health care in a way that ultimately seeks to transform culture and promote gender equity far beyond the careers of its participants. In an era of increased awareness of gender inequity within academic medicine, the longevity of the ELAM program raises several important questions. First, why is such a program still needed? Second, what exactly does it do, and what has been its influence on its participants and beyond? And third, what lessons can ELAM's example provide to help guide the medical profession as it strives to promote gender equity in the field? In this Invited Commentary, the authors seek to answer these questions from the perspective of a recent program participant and the current program director. The authors review the evidence that identifies how women, even today, face accumulating disadvantage over the course of their academic careers, stemming from repeated encounters with powerful unconscious biases and stereotypes, societal expectations for a gendered division of domestic labor, and still-present overt discrimination and sexual harassment. They describe ELAM's approach, which builds the knowledge and skills of the women who participate in the program, while also intentionally raising their visibility within their home institutions so that they have opportunities to share with institutional leaders what they have learned in ways that not only promote their own careers but also support gender equity in the broader environment. The authors conclude by offering thoughts on how ELAM's model may be leveraged in the future, ideally in partnership with the numerous professional societies, funding agencies, and other organizations that are committed to accelerating the rate of progress toward gender equity at all levels of academic medicine.

The current status of disaster preparedness in Canadian trauma centers.

Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) put substantial stress on loco-regional resources, and trauma centers are critical to responding to these events. Our previous evaluation of Canadian centers helped to identify several weaknesses in disaster responsiveness. In this analysis, we determined the current state of MCI readiness across Canada and how this has changed over time. A multinational cross-sectional survey-based study on MCI preparedness was performed, including 24 Canadian trauma centers. Surveys were completed anonymously online by representatives of each facility. Responses from Canadian centers were examined and compared to previous findings to assess temporal changes in institutional capacity. Fifteen (63%) trauma centers responded, 100% of which had a disaster committee. Sixty percent had a single all-hazards emergency plan, and 71% performed a practice drill in the last two years. Sixty-two percent had communications systems designed to function during an MCI. Ninety-two percent had a triage system in place, and 54% of centers could monitor surge capacity. Half (54%) reported back-up systems for survival essentials, but the capability for prolonged operation during a disaster was limited. A minority (15%) had a database denoting staff with emergency training, although half (54%) had disaster training programs. Comparison to past data showed an increased prevalence of committees dedicated to disaster preparedness and disaster drills but worsened external stakeholder representation and poor ability to provide a prolonged response to crises. Our results demonstrate that MCI preparedness is a growing focus of Canadian trauma centers, but that there are deficiencies that remain unaddressed. Future efforts should focus on these vulnerabilities to ensure the provision of a robust disaster response. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3b (prevalence study, limited population).

Research-Track Residency Programs in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Survey of Program Directors and Recent Graduates.

BACKGROUND: The importance of research in resident education has been emphasized in the orthopaedic surgery community, and a number of residency programs have incorporated a year or more of protected research time into their training. However, limited information exists as to what programs are looking for in applicants to research-track residency programs or the perceived benefits of completing such a program. METHODS: We identified orthopaedic surgery programs that have tracks involving at least 1 year of protected research time and sent surveys to their program directors and to the 2012 through 2016 research-track graduates. RESULTS: Twenty-three programs with research tracks were identified, and 19 program directors (83%) responded to the survey. The survey revealed that only 2 (11%) of these program directors were willing to accept lower scores and grades among applicants to their research track compared with their primary clinical (categorical) track. While most of the program directors (14 [74%]) preferred that applicants have an interest in academics, only a few (3 [16%]) considered it a failure if their research-track residents did not pursue academic careers. We obtained the e-mail addresses of 82 research-track graduates, and 66 (80%) responded to the survey. The survey revealed that those who went into academic careers were more likely than those who went into private practice to view completing a research track as beneficial for fellowship (73% versus 35%, respectively) and job (73% versus 22%, respectively) applications, believed that the income lost from the additional year of residency would be compensated for by opportunities gained from the research year (50% versus 17%, respectively), and said that they would pursue a research-track residency if they had to do it over again (81% versus 39%, respectively; all p values <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of program directors preferred that applicants to their research-track program have an interest in academics, although most did not consider it a failure if their research-track residents entered nonacademic careers. Graduates of research-track residency programs who entered academics more frequently viewed the completion of a research track as being beneficial compared with those who went into private practice.

The Revised Medical School Performance Evaluation: Does It Meet the Needs of Its Readers?

BACKGROUND: The Medical School Performance Evaluation (MSPE) is an important factor for application to residency programs. Many medical schools are incorporating recent recommendations from the Association of American Medical Colleges MSPE Task Force into their letters. To date, there has been no feedback from the graduate medical education community on the impact of this effort. OBJECTIVE: We surveyed individuals involved in residency candidate selection for internal medicine programs to understand their perceptions on the new MSPE format. METHODS: A survey was distributed in March and April 2018 using the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine listserv, which comprises 4220 individuals from 439 residency programs. Responses were analyzed, and themes were extracted from open-ended questions. RESULTS: A total of 140 individuals, predominantly program directors and associate program directors, from across the United States completed the survey. Most were aware of the existence of the MSPE Task Force. Respondents read a median of 200 to 299 letters each recruitment season. The majority reported observing evidence of adoption of the new format in more than one quarter of all medical schools. Among respondents, nearly half reported the new format made the MSPE more important in decision-making about a candidate. Within the MSPE, respondents recognized the following areas as most influential: academic progress, summary paragraph, graphic representation of class performance, academic history, and overall adjective of performance indicator (rank). CONCLUSIONS: The internal medicine graduate medical education community finds value in many components of the new MSPE format, while recognizing there are further opportunities for improvement.

Hospital-Level Cardiovascular Management Practices in Kerala, India.

Background Hospital management practices are associated with cardiovascular process of care measures and patient outcomes. However, management practices related to acute cardiac care in India has not been studied. Methods and Results We measured management practices through semistructured, in-person interviews with hospital administrators, physician managers, and nurse managers in Kerala, India between October and November 2017 using the adapted World Management Survey. Trained interviewers independently scored management interview responses (range: 1-5) to capture management practices ranging from performance data tracking to setting targets. We performed univariate regression analyses to assess the relationship between hospital-level factors and management practices. Using Pearson correlation coefficients and mixed-effect logistic regression models, we explored the relationship between management practices and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events defined as all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, or major bleeding. Ninety managers from 37 hospitals participated. We found suboptimal management practices across 3 management levels (mean [SD]: 2.1 [0.5], 2.0 [0.3], and 1.9 [0.3] for hospital administrators, physician managers, and nurse managers, respectively [ P=0.08]) with lowest scores related to setting organizational targets. Hospitals with existing healthcare quality accreditation, more cardiologists, and private ownership were associated with higher management scores. In our exploratory analysis, higher physician management practice scores related to operation, performance, and target management were correlated with lower 30-day major adverse cardiovascular event. Conclusions Management practices related to acute cardiac care in participating Kerala hospitals were suboptimal but were correlated with clinical outcomes. We identified opportunities to strengthen nonclinical practices to improve patient care.

Group Medical Visit Training in Family Medicine Residency: A 2015 CERA Program Directors Survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Group medical visits (GMV) have been shown to improve clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction and are included as a new tool in the patient-centered medical home (PCMH). The capacity for and interest in developing GMV skills in family medicine residency have not been assessed. This study aims to describe the extent of existing training in GMV as well as attitudes toward and barriers to this training. METHODS: The Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) sent a survey in the fall of 2015 to all US family medicine residency program directors (PDs) containing questions about the status of GMV training for their residents. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 53%. Fifty-nine percent of program director respondents report access to GMV and 61% note some form of training in this model of care. Seventy-nine percent of respondents indicate that GMV training is important for residents. Multiple barriers exist to optimizing GMV as part of current family medicine training. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of family medicine PD respondents report both access to and curriculum for GMV. While program directors endorse this practice model as an important element in resident training, they acknowledge challenges that may limit its availability. Opportunities to better understand and overcome barriers may increase programs' capacity to deliver GMV skills.

Leading the Dialysis Unit: Role of the Medical Director.

The responsibilities of a dialysis unit medical director are specified in the ESRD Conditions for Coverage and encompass multiple quality, safety, and educational domains. Many of these responsibilities require leadership skills that are neither intuitive nor acquired as part of the medical director's training. An effective medical director is able to shape the culture of the dialysis facility such that patients and staff feel free to communicate their concerns regarding suboptimal processes without fear of retribution, and there is a continuous iterative process of quality improvement and safety, which values input from all stakeholders. This ultimately decreases the use of shortcuts and work-arounds that may compromise patient safety and quality because policies and procedures make it easiest to do the right thing. Fundamental to this leadership by the medical director are communications skills, staff empowerment, allocation of resources, mentoring, team building, and strategic vision. The medical director leads by example and must be present in the dialysis unit for extended periods to send a message of accessibility and commitment. Many dialysis medical directors would benefit from leadership training inside or outside their dialysis corporation.

Opioid Prescribing Education in Surgical Residencies: A Program Director Survey.

BACKGROUND: Opioid abuse and misuse is a public health crisis. A national effort to reduce this phenomenon is ongoing. Residents represent a large pool of opioid prescribers but, are often not the target for opioid prescribing education (OPE). We developed a survey to assess current opioid prescribing practices and education among surgical residents. STUDY DESIGN: An Institutional Review Board and Association of Program Directors in Surgery approved survey was electronically mailed to surgical program directors (PDs). The survey included questions regarding residency type, location, number of graduates per year, perceived value of OPE, residency policy on prescribing outpatients controlled substances, presence of OPE, and preferred method of OPE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 248 PDs were e-mailed the survey with 110 complete responses (44.4%). Of all 104 (94.5%) allow residents to prescribe outpatient opioids with 24 (23.1%) limiting the opioid class prescribed. A total of 29 (27.9%) programs require residents to obtain their own Drug Enforcement Administration registration. Only 22 (20.0%) programs had in place mandatory OPE, 7 (6.4%) PDs were unsure if OPE was a mandatory educational requirement. Furthermore, 70 (79.5%) of programs currently without OPE are considering adding it. Didactic lecture (18, 81.8%) is the most common modality for OPE. The mode time dedicated to OPE was 1 hour. When PDs were asked about which method would be best to deliver OPE, the most common response was case-based scenarios (39, 35.5%). Bivariate statistics were performed and no association was found between OPE and program characteristics'. CONCLUSIONS: Most surgical residency programs allow residents to prescribe outpatient opioids, very few require OPE. The most common method of OPE was didactic lectures. To enhance a resident's knowledge in prescribing opioids, programs should incorporate OPE into their curriculum.

Residents and Program Director Perspectives Often Differ on Optimal Preparation Strategies and the Value of the Orthopedic In-Training Examination.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this work was to compare resident and program director (PD) perspectives on the value of the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE), resident study habits, and best resources for optimal performance. DESIGN: A national survey of orthopedic surgery residents and PDs. SETTING: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN PARTICIPANTS: The survey was completed by 445 (41.5%) eligible orthopedic surgery residents and 37 (77.1%) PDs. RESULTS: Although residents and PDs agreed on when (p = 0.896) and how much (p = 0.171) residents currently study, residents felt that the OITE was not as valuable of an assessment of their knowledge, and also felt their individual scores were less likely to remain confidential compared to PDs (p < 0.001). The mean OITE score below which residents were concerned about their ability to pass American Board of Orthopaedic Surgeons Part 1 was 9.7 percentile points higher than PDs threshold (42.3% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = 0.003). Both groups agreed that it is important to dedicate focused study time to the OITE (p = 0.680) and to perform well (p = 0.099). Regarding the best resources and preparation strategies, both residents and PDs tended to agree on the value of most (6 of 10) study methods. Residents ranked practice question websites (mean ranking of 2.6 vs. 3.8 of 10, respectively; p < 0.001) and formal rotations in a subspecialty (6.0 vs. 7.7 respectively, p < 0.001) higher than PDs. In contrast, PDs tended to value their program's formal OITE prep program (4.1. vs. 5.3, respectively, p = 0.012) and reading primary literature (5.6 vs. 6.6, respectively, p = 0.012) more than residents. CONCLUSION: Residents and PDs agreed on many critical components of this process; however, a number of key differences in perspectives exist.

Competitive Advantage of MBA for Physician Executives: A Systematic Literature Review.

In response to systemic challenges facing the US healthcare system, many medical students, residents and practicing physicians are pursuing a Master in Business Administration (MBA) degree. The value of such proposition remains poorly defined. The aim of this review is to analyze current literature pertaining to the added value of MBA training for physician executives (PEs). We hypothesized that physicians who supplement their clinical expertise with business education gain a significant competitive advantage. A detailed literature search of four electronic databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase and ERIC) was performed. Included were studies published between Jan 2000 and June 2017, focusing specifically on PEs. Among 1580 non-duplicative titles, we identified 23 relevant articles. Attributes which were found to add value to one's competitiveness as PE were recorded. A quality index score was assigned to each article in order to minimize bias. Results were tabulated by attributes and by publication. We found that competitive domains deemed to be most important for PEs in the context of MBA training were leadership (n = 17), career advancement opportunities (n = 12), understanding of financial aspects of medicine (n = 9) and team-building skills (n = 10). Among other prominent factors associated with the desire to engage in an MBA were higher compensation, awareness of public health issues/strategy, increased negotiation skills and enhanced work-life balance. Of interest, the learning of strategies for reducing malpractice litigation was less important than the other drivers. This comprehensive systemic review supports our hypothesis that a business degree confers a competitive advantage for PEs. Physician executives equipped with an MBA degree appear to be better equipped to face the challenge of the dynamically evolving healthcare landscape. This information may be beneficial to medical schools designing or implementing combined dual-degree curricula.