The Clinical Impact of Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Endocarditis Team.

BACKGROUND: Infectious endocarditis is associated with substantial in-hospital mortality of 15%-20%. Effective management requires coordination between multiple medical and surgical subspecialties, which can often lead to disjointed care. Previous European studies have identified multidisciplinary endocarditis teams as a tool for reducing endocarditis mortality. METHODS: The multidisciplinary endocarditis team was formed in May 2018. The group developed an evidence-based algorithm for management of endocarditis that was used to provide recommendations for hospitalized patients over a 1-year period. Mortality outcomes were then retroactively assessed and compared to a historical control utilizing propensity matching. RESULTS: Between June 2018 and June 2019 the team provided guideline-based recommendations on 56 patients with Duke Criteria-definite endocarditis and at least 1 American Heart Association indication for surgery. The historical control included 68 patients with definite endocarditis and surgical indications admitted between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015. In-hospital mortality decreased significantly from 29.4% in 2014-2015 to 7.1% in 2018-2019 (P < .0001). There was a non-significant increase in the rate of surgical intervention after implementation of the team (41.2% vs 55.4%; P = 0.12). Propensity score matching demonstrated similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a multidisciplinary endocarditis team was associated with a significant 1-year decrease in all-cause in-hospital mortality for patients with definite endocarditis and surgical indications, in the presence of notable differences between the 2 studied cohorts. In conjunction with previous studies demonstrating their effectiveness, these data support the idea that widespread adoption of endocarditis teams in North America could improve outcomes for this patient population.

A step-by-step guide to implementing a multidisciplinary endocarditis team.

Over the last several years multiple studies, primarily from European centers have demonstrated the clinical and outcomes benefits of multidisciplinary endocarditis teams. Despite this literature, adoption of this approach to patient care has been slower in the United States. While there is literature outlining the optimal composition of an endocarditis team, there is little information to guide providers as they attempt to transform practice from a fragmented, disjointed process to an efficient, collaborative care model. In this review, the authors will outline the steps they took to create and implement a successful multidisciplinary endocarditis team at the University of Michigan. In conjunction with existing data, this piece can be used as a resource for clinicians seeking to improve the care of patients with endocarditis at their institutions.

The Importance of Being Earnest.

Attempting to effect change in modern medicine, particularly as trainees or junior faculty, is often an overwhelming undertaking. While early-career physicians are in close contact with patients, they often lack the credibility or access to resources that are necessary to implement new ideas at large institutions. Although there may be scientific evidence to support new models of care, existing cultural patterns of practice can foster resistance to these interventions. The authors describe their own experience as residents reforming the management of endocarditis patients at an academic medical center, emphasizing the important role that residents can play in changing medical practice. Starting with a devastating patient case, the authors share their story of creating a multidisciplinary endocarditis team while navigating the many obstacles, some unseen, that can derail innovative ideas. Ultimately, through a combination of new perspectives, data-driven analysis, determination, and-most importantly-hope, the authors were able to dramatically improve outcomes for patients. Moving forward, their experience can serve as a model for young physicians and inspire them to effect change in their own institutions.

Strategies of Female Teaching Attending Physicians to Navigate Gender-Based Challenges: An Exploratory Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Women in medicine experience discrimination, hostility, and unconscious bias frequently and with deleterious effects. While these gender-based challenges are well described, strategies to navigate and respond to them are less understood. OBJECTIVE: To explore the lived experiences of female teaching attending physicians emphasizing strategies they use to mitigate gender-based challenges in clinical environments. DESIGN: Multisite exploratory, qualitative study. SETTING: Inpatient general medicine teaching rounds in six geographically diverse US academic hospitals between April and August 2018. PARTICIPANTS: With use of a modified snowball sampling approach, female attendings and their learners were identified; six female attendings and their current (n = 24) and former (n = 17) learners agreed to participate. MEASUREMENTS: Perceptions of gender-based challenges in clinical teaching environments and strategies with which to respond to these challenges were evaluated through semistructured in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and direct observations of rounds. Observations were documented using handwritten field notes. Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. All transcripts and field note data were analyzed using a content analysis approach. MAIN OUTCOMES: Attending experience levels ranged from 8 to 20 years (mean, 15.3 years). Attendings were diverse in terms of race/ethnicity. Strategic approaches to gender-based challenges clustered around three themes: female attendings (1) actively position themselves as physician team leaders, (2) consciously work to manage gender-based stereotypes and perceptions, and (3) intentionally identify and embrace their unique qualities. CONCLUSION: Female attendings manage their roles as women in medicine through specific strategies to both navigate complex gender dynamics and role model approaches for learners.

The 'July Effect' in supervisory residents: assessing the emotions of rising internal medicine PGY2 residents and the impact of an orientation retreat.

Background: The arrival of new residents brings challenges for residency programs and residents. Many residency programs conduct orientation sessions to help transition rising supervisory residents into their new roles, but no evaluation of their impact on residents' emotional well-being has been performed.Objective: This study assesses the impact of a half-day orientation retreat on rising internal medicine post-graduate year (PGY) 2 residents' emotions toward PGY2 year and their self-confidence in fulfilling the supervisory resident role.Design: A survey was administered to a class of rising supervisory residents immediately before and after an orientation retreat in May 2017. The survey provided participants an open-ended prompt to describe their emotions toward PGY2 year and a 5-point Likert scale to rate their confidence in fulfilling supervisory resident roles. Differences were assessed using McNemar's exact and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, respectively.Results: Forty-four of 50 (88%) eligible participants completed pre- and post-intervention Likert scales and 40 of 50 (80%) eligible participants completed corresponding emotion sections. Pre-intervention the most common emotions were anxiety (n = 33, 82.5%) and excitement (n = 32, 80.0%). Post-intervention, participants' fear was reduced (45.0% vs 12.0%; p < 0.001). Participants reported greater confidence that internship prepared them for PGY2 year and understanding of triaging and admitting principles (agree or strongly agree from 65.9% to 84.0% and from 25.0% to 68.2%, respectively; p < 0.005 for improvement by Wilcoxon signed-rank for both).Conclusions: Orientation retreats may be an effective way to reduce fear and demystify the supervisory resident role.

Clinical Practice Update on Infectious Endocarditis.

Infectious endocarditis is a highly morbid disease with approximately 43,000 cases per year in the United States. The modified Duke Criteria have poor sensitivity; however, advances in diagnostic imaging provide new tools for clinicians to make what can be an elusive diagnosis. There are a number of risk stratification calculators that can help guide providers in medical and surgical management. Patients who inject drugs pose unique challenges for the health care system as their addiction, which is often untreated, can lead to recurrent infections after valve replacement. There is a need to increase access to medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders in this population. Recent studies suggest that oral and depo antibiotics may be viable alternatives to conventional intravenous therapy. Additionally, shorter courses of antibiotic therapy are potentially equally efficacious in patients who are surgically managed. Given the complexities involved with their care, patients with endocarditis are best managed by multidisciplinary teams.

Physician perceptions of a multidisciplinary endocarditis team.

Infectious endocarditis is a highly morbid infection that requires coordination of care across medical and surgical specialties, often through the use of a multidisciplinary team model. Multiple studies have demonstrated that such conferences can improve clinical outcomes. However, little is known about physicians' impressions of these groups. We surveyed 126 (response rate of 30%) internal medicine, infectious diseases, cardiology, and cardiac surgery providers 1 year after the implementation of an endocarditis team at the University of Michigan. Ninety-eight percent of physicians felt that the endocarditis team improved communication between specialties. Additionally, over 85% of respondents agreed that the group influenced diagnostic evaluation, reduced management errors, increased access to surgery, and decreased in-hospital mortality for endocarditis patients. These results suggest that multidisciplinary endocarditis teams are valued by physicians as a tool to improve patient care and serve an important role in increasing communication between providers.

A comparison of automated dispensing cabinet optimization methods.

PURPOSE: Results of a study comparing two methods of optimizing automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs) are reported. METHODS: Eight nonprofiled ADCs were optimized over six months. Optimization of each cabinet involved three steps: (1) removal of medications that had not been dispensed for at least 180 days, (2) movement of ADC stock to better suit end-user needs and available space, and (3) adjustment of par levels (desired on-hand inventory levels). The par levels of four ADCs (the Day Supply group) were adjusted according to average daily usage; the par levels of the other four ADCs (the Formula group) were adjusted using a standard inventory formula. The primary outcome was the vend:fill ratio, while secondary outcomes included total inventory, inventory cost, quantity of expired medications, and ADC stockout percentage. RESULTS: The total number of medications stocked in the eight machines was reduced from 1,273 in a designated two-month preoptimization period to 1,182 in a designated two-month postoptimization period, yielding a carrying cost savings of $44,981. The mean vend:fill ratios before and after optimization were 4.43 and 4.46, respectively. The vend:fill ratio for ADCs in the Formula group increased from 4.33 before optimization to 5.2 after optimization; in the Day Supply group, the ratio declined (from 4.52 to 3.90). The postoptimization interaction difference between the Formula and Day Supply groups was found to be significant (p = 0.0477). CONCLUSION: ADC optimization via a standard inventory formula had a positive impact on inventory costs, refills, vend:fill ratios, and stockout percentages.