Structure and Funding of Clinical Informatics Fellowships: A National Survey of Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the American Board of Medical Specialties established clinical informatics (CI) as a subspecialty in medicine, jointly administered by the American Board of Pathology and the American Board of Preventive Medicine. Subsequently, many institutions created CI fellowship training programs to meet the growing need for informaticists. Although many programs share similar features, there is considerable variation in program funding and administrative structures. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to characterize CI fellowship program features, including governance structures, funding sources, and expenses. METHODS: We created a cross-sectional online REDCap survey with 44 items requesting information on program administration, fellows, administrative support, funding sources, and expenses. We surveyed program directors of programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education between 2014 and 2021. RESULTS: We invited 54 program directors, of which 41 (76%) completed the survey. The average administrative support received was $27,732/year. Most programs (85.4%) were accredited to have two or more fellows per year. Programs were administratively housed under six departments: Internal Medicine (17; 41.5%), Pediatrics (7; 17.1%), Pathology (6; 14.6%), Family Medicine (6; 14.6%), Emergency Medicine (4; 9.8%), and Anesthesiology (1; 2.4%). Funding sources for CI fellowship program directors included: hospital or health systems (28.3%), clinical departments (28.3%), graduate medical education office (13.2%), biomedical informatics department (9.4%), hospital information technology (9.4%), research and grants (7.5%), and other sources (3.8%) that included philanthropy and external entities. CONCLUSION: CI fellowships have been established in leading academic and community health care systems across the country. Due to their unique training requirements, these programs require significant resources for education, administration, and recruitment. There continues to be considerable heterogeneity in funding models between programs. Our survey findings reinforce the need for reformed federal funding models for informatics practice and training.

Quality Improvement to Eliminate Disparities in Developmental Screening for Patients Needing Interpreters.

Children from households with a preferred language other than English are less likely to receive timely identification and treatment for developmental delay than children of native English speakers. In dismantling this inequity, the role of primary care pediatrics is to establish equitable systems for screening and referral. This project, conducted in a network of twelve pediatric primary care centers, focused on eliminating a small but systematic disparity in developmental screening rates between families who did and did not require interpreters (86% versus 92%). The specific aim was to increase developmental screen completion among patients needing interpreters from 86% to 92% of age-appropriate well-child visits. Methods: Data were extracted from the electronic health record (EHR) to measure the proportion of 9-, 18-, 24-, and 30-month well-child visits at which developmental screens were completed, stratified by interpreter need (n = 31,461 visits; 7500 needing interpreters). One primary care center tested small changes to standardize processes, eliminate workarounds, and leverage EHR features using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Model for Improvement. The QI team plotted screen completion on control charts and spread successful changes to all 12 clinics. Statistical process control evaluated the significance of changes in screening rates. Results: For patients needing interpreters, screen completion rose across all clinics from 86% to 93% when the clinics implemented the new process. Screen completion for patients not needing interpreters remained at 92%. Conclusion: A standardized process supported by the EHR improved developmental screening among patients needing interpreters, eliminating disparities.