The State of Morning Report in the Current Healthcare Landscape: a National Survey of Internal Medicine Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: Case-based Morning Report (MR) has long been the predominant educational conference in Internal Medicine (IM) residency programs. The last comprehensive survey of IM MR was in 1986. Much has changed in the healthcare landscape since 1986 that may impact MR. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the current state of MR across all US IM programs. DESIGN: In 2018, US IM program directors (PDs) were surveyed about the dynamics of MR at their institutions, perceived pressures, and realized changes. KEY RESULTS: The response rate was 70.2% (275/392). MR remains highly prevalent (97.5% of programs), although held less frequently (mean 3.9 days/week, SD 1.2), for less time (mean 49.4 min, SD 12.3), and often later in the day compared to 1986. MR attendees have changed, with more diversity of learners but less presence of educational leaders. PD presence at MR is associated with increased resident attendance (high attendance: 78% vs 61%, p=0.0062) and punctuality (strongly agree/agree: 59% vs 43%, p=0.0161). The most cited goal for MR is utilizing cases to practice clinical reasoning. Nearly 40% of PDs feel pressure to move or cancel MR; of those, 61.2% have done so, most commonly changing the timing (48.5%), reducing the length (18.4%), and reducing the number of sessions per week (11.7%). Compared to community-based and to community-based, university-affiliated programs, university-based programs have 2.9 times greater odds (95% CI: 1.3, 6.9; p = 0.0081) and 2.5 times greater odds (95% CI 1.5, 4.4; p =0.0007), respectively, of holding MR after 9 AM, and 1.8 times greater odds (95% CI: 0.8, 4.2; p = 0.1367) and 2.0 times greater odds (95% CI: 1.2, 3.5; p = 0.0117), respectively, of reporting pressure to cancel or move MR compared to their counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: While MR ubiquity reflects its continued perceived value, PDs have modified MR to accommodate changes in the healthcare environment. This includes reduced frequency, shorter length, and moving conferences later in the day. Additional studies are needed to understand how these changes impact learning.

Does Increased Schedule Flexibility Lead to Change? A National Survey of Program Directors on 2017 Work Hours Requirements.

BACKGROUND: The learning and working environment for resident physicians shifted dramatically over the past two decades, with increased focus on work hours, resident wellness, and patient safety. Following two multi-center randomized trials comparing 16-h work limits for PGY-1 trainees to more flexible rules, the ACGME implemented new flexible work hours standards in 2017. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine program directors' (PDs) support for the work hour changes and programmatic response. DESIGN: In 2017, US Internal Medicine PDs were surveyed about their degree of support for extension of PGY-1 work hour limits, whether they adopted the new maximum continuous work hours permitted, and reasons for their decisions. KEY RESULTS: The response rate was 70% (266/379). Fifty-seven percent of PDs (n = 151) somewhat/strongly support the new work hour rules for PGY-1 residents, while only 25% of programs (N = 66) introduced work periods greater than 16-h on any rotation. Higher rates of adopting change were seen in PDs who strongly/somewhat supported the change (56/151 [37%], P < 0.001), had tenure of 6+ years (33/93 [35%], P = 0.005), were of non-general internal medicine subspecialty (30/80 [38%], P = 0.003), at university-based programs (35/101 [35%], P = 0.009), and with increasing number of approved positions (< 38, 10/63 [16%]; 38-58, 13/69 [19%]; 59-100, 15/64 [23%]; > 100, 28/68 [41%], P = 0.005). Areas with the greatest influence for PDs not extending work hours were the 16-h rule working well (56%) and risk to PGY1 well-being (47%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of PDs support the ACGME 2017 work hours rules, only 25% of programs made immediate changes to extend hours. These data reveal that complex, often competing, forces influence PDs' decisions to change trainee schedules.

Residency Program Responses to Early COVID-19 Surges Highlight Tension as to Whether Residents Are Learners or Essential Workers.

PURPOSE: To quantify the extent to which internal medicine (IM) residents provided care for patients with COVID-19 and examine characteristics of residency programs with or without plans (at some point) to exclude residents from COVID-19 care during the first 6 months of the pandemic. METHOD: The authors used data from a nationally representative, annually recurring survey of U.S. IM program directors (PDs) to quantify early (March-August 2020) resident participation in COVID-19 care. The survey was fielded from August to December 2020. PDs reported whether they had planned to exclude residents from COVID-19 care (i.e., PTE status). PTE status was tested for association with program and COVID-19 temporal characteristics, resident schedule accommodations, and resident COVID-19 cases. RESULTS: The response rate was 61.5% (264/429). Nearly half of PDs (45.4%, 118/260) reported their program had planned at some point to exclude residents from COVID-19 care. Northeastern U.S. programs represented a smaller percentage of PTE than non-PTE programs (26.3% vs 36.6%; P = .050). PTE programs represented a higher percentage of programs with later surges than non-PTE programs (33.0% vs 13.6%, P = .048). Median percentage of residents involved in COVID-19 care was 75.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 22.5-100.0) for PTE programs, compared with 95.0 (IQR: 60.0-100.0) for non-PTE programs ( P < .001). Residents participated most in intensive care units (87.6%, 227/259) and inpatient wards (80.8%, 210/260). Accommodations did not differ by PTE status. PTE programs reported fewer resident COVID-19 cases than non-PTE programs (median percentage = 2.7 [IQR: 0.0-8.6] vs 5.1 [IQR: 1.6-10.7]; P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: IM programs varied widely in their reported plans to exclude residents from COVID-19 care during the early pandemic. A high percentage of residents provided COVID-19 care, even in PTE programs. Thus, the pandemic highlighted the tension as to whether residents are learners or employees.

Parental Leave Policies in Residency: A National Survey of Internal Medicine Program Directors.

PURPOSE: To characterize the existence, accessibility, and content of parental leave policies, as well as barriers to program-level policy implementation among internal medicine (IM) program directors (PDs) and to assess the willingness of PDs to implement a national standardized policy. METHOD: In 2019, the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine conducted a survey of 422 IM PDs. Along with other content, 38 questions addressed 4 primary outcomes: parental leave policy existence, accessibility, content, and barriers. The authors compared programs with and without a program-level policy and applied qualitative content analysis to open-ended questions about barriers to policy implementation and openness to a national standard. RESULTS: The response rate was 69.4% (293/422). Of responding programs, 86% (250/290) reported a written parental leave policy with 43% (97/225) of these originating at the program level. Program-level policies, compared with policies at other levels, were more likely to address scheduling during pregnancy (38%, 36/95 vs 22%, 27/124; P = .018); peer coverage (24%, 21/89 vs 15%, 16/109; P = .037), how the duration of extended training is determined (81%, 72/89 vs 44%, 48/109; P < .001), and associated pay and benefits 61%, 54/89 vs 44%, 48/109; P = .009). PDs without program-level policy reported lacking guidance to develop policy, deferring upward to institutional policies, and wishing to retain flexibility. More than half of PDs (60%, 170/282) expressed agreement that a national standard for a residency program-level parental leave policy should exist. Those not in favor cited organization equity, lack of resources, implementation challenges, loss of flexibility, and potentially disadvantaging recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: While existing program-level policies included important content, most PDs reported not having them. A national standard to guide the development of program-level parental leave policies could be embraced if it provided flexibility for programs with limited resources.

Effect of Increased Interprofessional Familiarity on Team Performance, Communication, and Psychological Safety on Inpatient Medical Teams: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In large academic centers, medical residents work on multiple clinical floors with transient interactions with nursing colleagues. Although teamwork is critical in delivering high-quality medical care, little research has evaluated the effect of interprofessional familiarity on inpatient team performance. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of increased familiarity between medical residents and nurses on team performance, psychological safety, and communication. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 12-month randomized clinical trial in an inpatient general medical service at a large academic medical center was completed from June 25, 2019, to June 24, 2020. Participants included 33 postgraduate year (PGY)-1 residents in an internal medicine residency program and 91 general medicine nurses. Interventions: Fifteen PGY-1 residents were randomized to complete all 16 weeks of their general medicine inpatient time on 1 medical nursing floor (intervention group with 43 nurses). Eighteen PGY-1 residents completed 16 weeks on 4 different general medical floors as per usual care (control group with 48 nurses). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was an assessment of team performance in physician-nurse simulation scenarios completed at 6 and 12 months. Interprofessional communication was assessed via a time-motion study of both work rounds and individual resident clinical work. Psychological safety and teamwork culture were assessed via surveys of both residents and nurses at multiple time points. Results: Of the intervention and control PGY-1 residents, 8 of 15 (54%) and 8 of 18 (44%) were women, respectively. Of the nurses in the intervention and control groups with information available, 37 of 40 (93%) and 34 of 38 (90%) were women, respectively, and more than 70% had less than 10 years of clinical experience. There was no difference in overall team performance during the first simulation. At the 12-month simulation, the intervention teams received a higher mean overall score in leadership and management (mean [SD], 2.47 [0.53] vs 2.17 [0.39]; P = .045, Cohen d = 0.65) and on individually rated items were more likely to work as 1 unit (100% vs 62%; P = .003), negotiate with the patient (61% vs 10%; P = .001), support other team members (61% vs 24%; P = .02), and communicate as a team (56% vs 19%; P = .02). The intervention teams were more successful in achieving the correct simulation case outcome of negotiating a specific insulin dose with the patient (67% vs 14%; P = .001). Time-motion analysis noted intervention teams were more likely to have a nurse present on work rounds (47% vs 28%; P = .03). At 6 months, nurses in the intervention group were more likely to report their relationship with PGY-1 residents to be excellent to outstanding (74% vs 40%; P = .003), feel that the input of all clinical practitioners was valued (95% vs 53%; P < .001), and say that feedback between practitioners was delivered in a way to promote positive interactions (90% vs 60%; P = .003). These differences diminished at the 12-month survey. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, increased familiarity between nurses and residents promoted more rapid improvement of nursing perception of team relationships and, over time, led to higher team performance on complex cognitive tasks in medical simulations. Medical centers should consider team familiarity as a potential metric to improve physician-nursing teamwork and patient care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05213117.

A controlled trial of a rapid response system in an academic medical center.

A medical emergency team composed of house staff and existing float-pool nurses was successfully implemented on the general medical floor of an academic medical center without increasing personnel. The intervention had little noticeable impact, although the number of cardiac arrests and deaths were low both before and after the intervention.

Internal Medicine Resident Perspectives on Virtual Recruitment.

This survey study describes the perceived implications of virtual-only recruitment and the preferred application process for residents and fellows.

Effect of Increased Inpatient Attending Physician Supervision on Medical Errors, Patient Safety, and Resident Education: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: While the relationship between resident work hours and patient safety has been extensively studied, little research has evaluated the role of attending physician supervision on patient safety. Objective: To determine the effect of increased attending physician supervision on an inpatient resident general medical service on patient safety and educational outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 9-month randomized clinical trial performed on an inpatient general medical service of a large academic medical center used a crossover design. Participants were clinical teaching attending physicians and residents in an internal medicine residency program. Interventions: Twenty-two faculty provided either (1) increased direct supervision in which attending physicians joined work rounds on previously admitted patients or (2) standard supervision in which attending physicians were available but did not join work rounds. Each faculty member participated in both arms in random order. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary safety outcome was rate of medical errors. Resident education was evaluated via a time-motion study to assess resident participation on rounds and via surveys to measure resident and attending physician educational ratings. Results: Of the 22 attending physicians, 8 (36%) were women, with 15 (68%) having more than 5 years of experience. A total of 1259 patients (5772 patient-days) were included in the analysis. The medical error rate was not significantly different between standard vs increased supervision (107.6; 95% CI, 85.8-133.7 vs 91.1; 95% CI, 76.9-104.0 per 1000 patient-days; P = .21). Time-motion analysis of 161 work rounds found no difference in mean length of time spent discussing established patients in the 2 models (202; 95% CI, 192-212 vs 202; 95% CI, 189-215 minutes; P = .99). Interns spoke less when an attending physician joined rounds (64; 95% CI, 60-68 vs 55; 95% CI, 49-60 minutes; P = .008). In surveys, interns reported feeling less efficient (41 [55%] vs 68 [73%]; P = .02) and less autonomous (53 [72%] vs 86 [91%]; P = .001) with an attending physician present and residents felt less autonomous (11 [58%] vs 30 [97%]; P < .001). Conversely, attending physicians rated the quality of care higher when they participated on work rounds (20 [100%] vs 16 [80%]; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: Increased direct attending physician supervision did not significantly reduce the medical error rate. In designing morning work rounds, residency programs should reconsider their balance of patient safety, learning needs, and resident autonomy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03318198.

Update in hospital medicine: Evidence you should know.

BACKGROUND: The practice of hospital medicine is complex, and the number of clinical publications each year continues to grow. To maintain best practice it is necessary for hospitalists to stay abreast of the literature, but difficult to accomplish due to time. The annual Society of Hospital Medicine meeting offers a plenary session on Updates in Hospital Medicine. This article is a summary of those papers presented at the meeting. METHODS: We reviewed articles published between January 2014 and January 2015 in the leading medical journals, searching for papers with good methodological quality, the potential to change practice, and papers that are thought provoking. The authors collectively agreed on 14 articles. The findings, cautions, and implications are discussed for each paper. RESULTS: Key findings include: a novel neprilysin inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker combination drug reduces mortality in patients with heart failure; the concern for acute kidney injury after venous contrast may be overstated; the Confusion Assessment Method Severity score is an important tool for prognostication in delirious patients; ramelteon shows promise for lowering incident delirium among elderly medical patients; polyethylene glycol appears effective in rapidly resolving hepatic encephalopathy; cirrhotic patients on a nonselective ß-blocker have increased mortality after they develop spontaneous bacterial peritonitis; current guidelines regarding prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical inpatients likely result in non-beneficial use of medications; from a safety and efficacy perspective, direct oral anticoagulants perform quite well against conventional therapies in patients with VTE and atrial fibrillation, including in elderly populations; 2 new once-weekly antibiotics, dalbavancin and oritivancin, approved for skin and soft tissue infections, appear noninferior to vancomycin; offering family members of a patient undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation the opportunity to observe has durable impact on long-term psychological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This update reviews key clinical articles published in 2014, selected by the authors for their methodological quality and potential for changing the practice of inpatient physicians. All of these articles add to the body of inpatient medical knowledge and contribute to the debate on best practices.

Improving the discharge process by embedding a discharge facilitator in a resident team.

BACKGROUND: Hospital discharges are vulnerable periods for patient safety, especially in teaching hospitals where discharges are done by residents with competing demands. We sought to assess whether embedding a nurse practitioner on a medical team to help physicians with the discharge process would improve communication, patient follow-up, and hospital reutilization. METHODS: A 5-month randomized controlled trial was conducted on the medical service at an academic tertiary-care hospital. A nurse practitioner was randomly assigned to 1 resident team to complete discharge paperwork, arrange follow-up appointments and prescriptions, communicate discharge plans with nursing and primary care physicians, and answer questions from discharged patients. RESULTS: Intervention patients had more discharge summaries completed within 24 hours (67% vs. 47%, P < 0.001). Similarly, they had more follow-up appointments scheduled by the time of discharge (62% vs. 36%, P < 0.0001) and attended those appointments more often within 2 weeks (36% vs. 23%, P < 0.0002). Intervention patients knew whom to call with questions (95% vs. 85%, P = 0.003) and were more satisfied with the discharge process (97% vs. 76%, P < 0.0001). Attending rounds on the intervention team finished on time (45% vs. 31%, P = 0.058), and residents signed out on average 46 minutes earlier each day. There was no significant difference between the groups in 30-day emergency department visits or readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Helping resident physicians with the discharge process improves many aspects of discharge communication and patient follow-up, and saves residents' time, but had no effect on hospital reutilization for a general medicine population.