Impact of an Interprofessional HIV Quality Improvement Team on Patient Care and Resident Learning Opportunities.

Introduction: Although human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) care is a recommended competency for family medicine training, many programs report a lack of HIV expertise among faculty. After the departure of faculty with HIV care experience, an interprofessional HIV quality improvement team (HIV-QIT) of physicians and pharmacists aimed to maintain on-site HIV care and retain learning opportunities for residents, using process improvement and panel reviews with a remote HIV specialist faculty member. Methods: This study reports on a multicycle quality improvement pilot project with pre- and postintervention chart reviews between December 2019 and May 2021. All patients received primary care and HIV-QIT chart reviews on-site. We compared patients with integrated HIV care on-site to those receiving external HIV specialty care. Primary outcomes included virologic suppression, CD4 count ≥200 cells/mm3, and adherence to guideline-recommended HIV care. In cycle 1 (January-June 2020), the HIV-QIT reviewed patient charts and sent guideline-based recommendations to physicians. In cycle 2 (July 2020-May 2021), the HIV-QIT implemented several HIV-specific processes, including decision support updates, note templates, order sets, and reference materials. Sustained process improvements included HIV panel chart audits every 3 to 6 months and subsequent provider education. Results: Of 29 patients, more than half (55%, n=16) received integrated HIV care at the primary care site. We found no significant difference in care quality measures between primary and specialty care. Barriers to care completion included missed or canceled follow-up visits, on-site phlebotomy service closures, and declined HIV services. Conclusions: The HIV-QIT maintained on-site HIV treatment and retained experiential learning opportunities through process improvement and specialist-supported care recommendations to primary care physicians.

Assessing HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Education in a Family Medicine Residency.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been purposefully incorporated into our family medicine resident training within existing didactic lectures, readings, and routine office visit precepting. This mixed-methods evaluation assesses training strategies for PrEP use via survey and drug use evaluation (DUE). METHODS: We surveyed 80 current and former family medicine residents (2014-2018) about their exposure to training components, self-reported confidence and competency in PrEP use, and practice behaviors reflecting CDC guidelines for patient eligibility and testing. In addition, we conducted a DUE of patients receiving PrEP from 2012-2018 for adherence to CDC guidelines. We report results with descriptive statistics, with χ2 analysis for group comparisons. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 56.3%. Among respondents, 46.7% have prescribed PrEP and 55.5% self-assessed as competent to prescribe PrEP, with the majority (84%) rating precepting as most effective for building competence. Those self-assessed as competent were more likely to endorse practice behaviors reflecting CDC guidelines for monitoring PrEP (P<.05). DUE identified 68 patients; 98.5% men who have sex with men. No women with recent sexually transmitted infections, nor persons who inject drugs (PWID) received PrEP. Initial testing completion ranged from 79.4% (HIV) to 54.4% (hepatitis B). Follow-up testing completion ranged from 41.5% (HIV) to 26.4% (syphilis). CONCLUSIONS: Residents rated precepting as the most effective training. However, DUE demonstrated that PrEP underuse, as well as suboptimal testing, limited experiential training on CDC guidelines. Curricular updates should further emphasize appropriate patient selection for PrEP, including women, minorities, and PWID, as well as robust testing, to continue expanding PrEP access.

Clinical Pharmacist Faculty Contribution to Evidence-Based Medicine and Milestones.

INTRODUCTION: Family medicine residency programs (FMRPs) endeavor to meet evidence-based medicine (EBM) subcompetencies through the milestones project. Comprehensive descriptions of clinical pharmacists' contributions in teaching EBM within the context of residency are limited. METHODS: Over a study period of 2 months, clinical pharmacists across five FMRPs in four states were invited to track their interactions with physician residents. EBM resources, skills, and targeted milestone data were collected. Pharmacists also quantified their nonpatient care contributions to EBM. RESULTS: Of the 16 clinical pharmacists invited, 16 (100%) participated in the October and 12 (75.0%) in the March collection period. A total of 598.9 half days over 2 months (42 working days) of available teaching time were reported. The tracking tool captured 1,253 EBM teaching encounters with a total average of 2.1 encounters per half day. Of those encounters, point-of-care references were most commonly used (63.7%) and "apply" was the most common EBM skill taught (83.8%). The most commonly tracked milestone was Medical Knowledge 2 (75.3%) at Level 2. Nine out of 10 faculty pharmacists included in this study reported performing the following roles: preceptor (100%), lecturer (89.9%), provider (77.8%), expert/consultant (77.8%), health care team (66.7%), and other (11.1%). Faculty pharmacists also reported directly evaluating milestones for physician residents through: committee work (44.4%), resident evaluations (77.8%), and rotation evaluations (77.8%). CONCLUSIONS: As FMRPs strive to meet ACGME EBM-related competencies, clinical pharmacists across multiple sites demonstrated contributions to teaching EBM in medical resident education. Using a nonphysician faculty for this purpose may provide an example for other FMRPs.

Meeting Resident Scholarly Activity Requirements Through a Longitudinal Quality Improvement Curriculum.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) skills are learned during residency, yet there are few reports of the scholarly activity outcomes of a QI curriculum in a primary care program. INTERVENTION: We examined whether scholarly activity can result from a longitudinal, experiential QI curriculum that involves residents, clinic staff, and faculty. METHODS: The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Shadyside Family Medicine Residency implemented a required longitudinal outpatient practice improvement rotation (LOPIR) curriculum in 2005. The rotation format includes weekly multidisciplinary work group meetings alternating with resident presentations delivered to the entire program. Residents present the results of a literature review and provide 2 interim project updates to the residency. A completed individual project is required for residency graduation, with project results presented at Residency Research Day. Scholarly activity outcomes of the curriculum were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: As of 2014, 60 residents completed 3 years of the LOPIR curriculum. All residents satisfied the 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) scholarly activity and QI requirements with a literature review presentation in postgraduate year 2, and the presentation of a completed QI project at Residency Research Day. Residents have delivered 83 local presentations, 13 state/regional presentations, and 2 national presentations. Residents received 7 awards for QI posters, as well as 3 grants totaling $21,639. The educational program required no additional curriculum time, few resources, and was acceptable to residents, faculty, and staff. CONCLUSIONS: LOPIR is an effective way to meet and exceed the 2014 ACGME scholarly activity requirements for family medicine residents.

Guidelines for resident teaching experiences.

Postgraduate year one (PGY1) and postgraduate year two (PGY2) residencies serve to develop pharmacists into skillful clinicians who provide advanced patient-centered care in various general and specialized areas of pharmacy practice. Pharmacy residencies are a minimum requirement for many clinical pharmacy positions, as well as for positions in academia. The role of clinical pharmacists typically includes teaching, regardless of whether they pursue an academic appointment. Common teaching duties of pharmacist-clinicians include giving continuing education or other invited presentations, providing education to colleagues regarding clinical initiatives, precepting pharmacy students (early and advanced experiences) and residents, and educating other health care professionals. Although ASHP provides accreditation standards for PGY1 and PGY2 residencies, the standards pertaining to teaching or education training are vague. Through the years, teaching certificate programs that develop residents' teaching skills and better prepare residents for a diverse pharmacy job market have increased in popularity; moreover, teaching certificate programs serve as an attractive recruitment tool. However, the consistency of requirements for teaching certificate programs is lacking, and standardization is needed. The Task Force on Residencies developed two sets of guidelines to define teaching experiences within residencies. The first guideline defines the minimum standards for teaching experiences in any residency-training program. The second guideline is for programs offering a teaching certificate program to provide standardization, ensuring similar outcomes and quality on program completion. One of the main differences between the guidelines is the recommendation that residency programs offering a teaching certificate program be affiliated with an academic institution to provide the pedagogy and variety of teaching experiences for the resident. Residency program directors should consider adopting these guidelines to offer consistent teaching experiences. In addition, residents should inquire about the elements of teaching in a program as an aid to selecting the training best suited to their needs.

Effects of commercial energy drink consumption on athletic performance and body composition.

Energy drinks are frequently marketed to individuals interested in athletics and an active lifestyle. From 2001 to 2008, estimates of energy drink use in adolescent to middle-aged populations ranged from 24% to 56%. Most energy drinks feature caffeine and a combination of other components, including taurine, sucrose, guarana, ginseng, niacin, pyridoxine, and cyanocobalamin. This article examines the evidence for 2 commonly purported uses of energy drinks: athletic performance enhancement and weight loss. Observed ergogenic benefits of energy drinks are likely attributable to caffeine and glucose content. There is conflicting evidence regarding the impact of energy drinks on weight loss, although some data suggest that combining energy drink use with exercise may enhance body fat reduction. As with any pharmacologically active substance, energy drinks are associated with adverse effects. Combining energy drinks with alcohol exacerbates safety concerns and is an increasingly common practice contributing to toxic jock identity among college-aged male athletes. Practitioners should monitor identified populations likely to consume these loosely regulated beverages.