Pivoting during a Pandemic: Reimagining Intern Orientation EPA-Based OSCE.

OBJECTIVES: Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) provide reliable and standardized means for assessing the performance of specific clinical skills. Our previous experience with entrustable professional activity-based multidisciplinary OSCEs suggests that this exercise offers just-in-time baseline information regarding critical intern skills. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic forced medical education programs to reimagine such educational experiences. For the safety of all of the participants, the Internal Medicine and Family Medicine residency programs pivoted from an in-person OSCE to a hybrid model (combination of in-person and virtual encounters) while maintaining the goals of the OSCEs administered in previous years. Here, we describe an innovative hybrid approach to redesigning and implementing the existing OSCE model while maximizing risk mitigation. METHODS: In total, 41 interns from Internal Medicine and Family Medicine participated in the 2020 hybrid OSCE. Five stations allowed for clinical skills assessment. Faculty completed skills checklists with global assessments and simulated patients completed communication checklists with global assessments. Interns, faculty, and simulated patients completed a post-OSCE survey. RESULTS: Informed consent, handoffs, and oral presentation were the lowest performing stations (29.2%, 53.6%, 53.6%, respectively) as assessed by faculty skill checklists. One hundred percent of interns (41/41) indicated that immediate faculty feedback was the most valuable part of the exercise, and all of the participating faculty believed that the format was efficient, allowing ample time to provide feedback and complete checklists. Eighty-nine percent of simulated patients cited they would be willing to participate again if the same assessment were to be held during the pandemic. The limitations of the study included the lack of demonstration of physical examination maneuvers by interns. CONCLUSIONS: A hybrid OSCE to assess interns' baseline skills during orientation using Zoom technology could be delivered successfully and safely during the pandemic without compromising the program's goals or satisfaction.

Integrated care coordination by an interprofessional team reduces emergency department visits and hospitalisations at an academic health centre.

People with chronic behavioural and physical health conditions have higher healthcare costs and mortality rates than patients with chronic physical conditions alone. As a result, there has been promotion of integrated care for this group. It is important to train primary care residents to practice in integrated models of care with interprofessional teams and to evaluate the effectiveness of integrated care models to promote high-quality care for this at-risk group. We implemented an integrated, interprofessional care management programme for adults with chronic mental and physical health needs as part of a curriculum for family medicine and family medicine psychiatry residents. We then evaluated the clinical effectiveness of this programme by describing participants' healthcare utilisation patterns pre- and post-enrolment. Patients enrolled in the programme were approximately 60-70% less likely to utilise the emergency room and 50% less likely to be admitted to the hospital after enrolment in the programme compared to before enrolment. The odds of individual attendance at outpatient primary care and mental health visits improved after enrolment. In the context of the implementation of integrated behavioural and physical healthcare in primary care, this interprofessional care management programme reduced emergency department utilisation and hospitalisations while improving utilisation of primary care and psychiatry outpatient care. Further studies should focus on replication of this model to further discern the model's cost-savings and health promotion effects.

Trained Clinician's Documentation of Serious Illness Conversations and Use of Billing CPT 99497.

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) involves patients and family members in discussions with clinicians about their values, goals, and preferences regarding future medical care. Objectives: To (1) assess whether an ACP conversation using the Serious Illness Conversation (SIC) was initiated and documented; (2) assess which components of SIC were documented; (3) determine how frequently clinicians trained to use the SIC guide used ACP billing codes during the study time period, (4) determine whether there was a significant difference in mortality risk score according to documentation of each component of the SIC. Methods; Thirteen clinicians at three family medicine offices were trained in the Serious Illness Care Program and asked to document SICs in the electronic medical record (EMR). A retrospective chart review of SIC components was conducted in the EMRs of patients who presumably had ACP conversations initiated by the trained clinicians. Patients were identified using the billing codes for ACP conversations and through referrals from another study that requires clinicians to have ACP conversations with their patients. Pearson chi-square test for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables were conducted. Results: A total of 157 patients were included in this study; 131 patients referred from another ACP study and an additional 26 patients using the billing codes of ACP conversations. Through retrospective chart review, the mean age of patients was 72 years and 54 were male. Sixty-two (40%) charts had one or more SIC components documented. "Explore key topics" was documented most frequently for 58 (38%) patients by the 13 participating clinicians. Mean mortality risk score was 10.7 and higher scores were significantly correlated with more SIC components documented (rp = 0.217, P = 0.007). Conclusion: Little use of the SIC guide among trained physicians was found in the EMR. It was expected that provision of an EMR template for documenting the SIC would have facilitated documentation of SICs.

The Impact of Using Mean Versus Mode When Assessing Resident Competency.

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestone Project was implemented in 2014 to standardize assessments and progression of residents. While it is recommended that milestones not be used as tools for direct assessments of resident competency, many programs have used or adapted milestone tools for this purpose. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore use of the most frequent milestone level at which a resident was evaluated (ie, the mode), and compared this to the standard practice of using the arithmetic mean for summarizing performance. METHODS: We reviewed all Family Medicine Milestone evaluations from 1 program for the first 2 academic years of milestone implementation. Mean and mode scores were calculated across 24 unique residents, 841 evaluation forms, and 5897 measurements. The proportion of overestimation errors (where the mean is at least 0.5 larger than the mode) and underestimation errors (where the mean is at least 0.5 less than the mode) were then compared across resident training year and subcompetency. RESULTS: For the 24 residents, an estimation error occurred in 175 of 792 of the comparisons (22%). Of these errors, 118 (67%) were overestimation errors. First-year residents accounted for 55% (96 of 175) of all estimation errors. All subcompetencies had some estimation errors, with 6 having greater than 5%. CONCLUSIONS: If the trend for using the milestones as stand-alone assessment tools is to continue, aggregating data by using frequency distributions and mode would be a more stable and appropriate approach given their nominal or, at best, ordinal nature.