A Health System-Wide Initiative to Decrease Opioid-Related Morbidity and Mortality.

BACKGROUND: The opioid overdose crisis now claims more than 40,000 lives in the United States every year, and many hospitals and health systems are responding with opioid-related initiatives, but how best to coordinate hospital or health system-wide strategy and approach remains a challenge. METHODS: An organizational opioid stewardship program (OSP) was created to reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality in order to provide an efficient, comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to address the epidemic in one health system. An executive committee of hospital leaders was convened to empower and launch the program. To measure progress, metrics related to care of patients on opioids and those with opioid use disorder (OUD) were evaluated. RESULTS: The OSP created a holistic, health system-wide program that addressed opioid prescribing, treatment of OUD, education, and information technology tools. After implementation, the number of opioid prescriptions decreased (-73.5/month; p < 0.001), mean morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per prescription decreased (-0.4/month; p < 0.001), the number of unique patients receiving an opioid decreased (-52.6/month; p < 0.001), and the number of prescriptions ≥ 90 MME decreased (-48.1/month; p < 0.001). Prescriptions and providers for buprenorphine increased (+6.0 prescriptions/month and +0.4 providers/month; both p < 0.001). Visits for opioid overdose did not change (-0.2 overdoses/month; p = 0.29). CONCLUSION: This paper describes a framework for a new health system-wide OSP. Successful implementation required strong executive sponsorship, ensuring that the program is not housed in any one clinical department in the health system, creating an environment that empowers cross-disciplinary collaboration and inclusion, as well as the development of measures to guide efforts.

Diversity Is Not Enough: Advancing a Framework for Antiracism in Medical Education.

Medical students, residents, and faculty have begun to examine and grapple with the legacy and persistence of structural racism in academic medicine in the United States. Until recently, the discourse and solutions have largely focused on augmenting diversity across the medical education continuum through increased numbers of learners from groups underrepresented in medicine (UIM). Despite deliberate measures implemented by medical schools, residency programs, academic institutions, and national organizations, meaningful growth in diversity has not been attained. To the contrary, the UIM representation among medical trainees has declined or remained below the representation in the general population. Inequities continue to be observed in multiple domains of medical education, including grading, admission to honor societies, and extracurricular obligations. These inequities, alongside learners' experiences and calls for action, led the authors to conclude that augmenting diversity is necessary but insufficient to achieve equity in the learning environment. In this article, the authors advance a 4-step framework, built on established principles and practices of antiracism, to dismantle structural racism in medical education. They ground each step of the framework in the concepts and skills familiar to medical educators. By drawing parallels with clinical reasoning, medical error, continuous quality improvement, the growth mindset, and adaptive expertise, the authors show how learners, faculty, and academic leaders can implement the framework's 4 steps-see, name, understand, and act-to shift the paradigm from a goal of diversity to a stance of antiracism in medical education.

Building Longitudinal Relationships Into a Traditional Block Clerkship Model: A Mixed-Methods Study.

PURPOSE: The authors describe the implementation of the novel Longitudinal Clinical Experiences with Patients (LCEP) curriculum, designed to integrate continuity and longitudinal patient relationships into a traditional block clerkship (BC), and present a mixed-methods analysis evaluating program effectiveness to assess its feasibility, value, and impact. METHOD: This was a mixed-methods study of 54 Harvard Medical School students who participated in the LCEP during their core clerkship (third) year during the 2013-2014 academic year. Fifty-two students responded to an electronic survey about the patients they followed during the LCEP. Forty-two students completed confidential live interviews. Unique groups of 13-15 students were interviewed at 3 times during the year to assess students' perceptions of the LCEP over time. The data were analyzed using a content analysis framework. RESULTS: On average, students followed 3.3 LCEP patients over the clerkship year. Ninety-four percent (n = 49/52) of students were able to follow 2 or more patients longitudinally. Most students met their longitudinal patient in the inpatient setting (71%, n = 37/52). Subsequent encounters were most often in the ambulatory setting. Students described scheduling logistics as key to the success or failure of the program. Many students described the challenges of competing priorities between their BC responsibilities and longitudinal opportunities. Students found the LCEP deepened their understanding of the patient experience, the health care system, and disease progression. Over the course of an academic year, an increased proportion of students (60%) highlighted understanding the patient experience as a core value obtained through the LCEP. CONCLUSIONS: The LCEP was feasible and proved successful in promoting longitudinal patient relationships within a traditional BC model. Prioritizing the depth of experience with a smaller number of patients may reduce the barriers described by students. The results suggest that such a hybrid program promotes patient-centeredness.

Residents Take the Lead: A Modern Collaborative Approach to Research During Residency.

BACKGROUND: Participation in scholarship is a requirement for Internal Medicine (IM) residencies, but programs struggle to successfully integrate research into busy clinical schedules. In 2013, the IM residency at Brigham and Women's Hospital implemented the Housestaff Research Project (HRP)- a novel residency-wide research initiative designed to facilitate participation in scholarship. The HRP had two components-a formal research curriculum and an infrastructure that provided funding and mentorship for resident-led, housestaff wide projects. METHODS: This is a mixed-methods study of 190 IM residents and two HRP-supported research projects. Seventy-seven residents responded to an electronic survey about their interests in research exposure in residency. Fifty-six residents responded to an electronic survey about their participation in the HRP. The success of HRP-supported projects was evaluated through resident comments, interviews with three residents leading the first two HRPs and a description of the success of the projects based on resident involvement and dissemination of the results. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent (n= 67/77) of residents were interested in additional research exposure during residency. Ninety-five percent (n = 53/56) of residents had heard of the HRP, and 77% had participate in at least one aspect of it. Approximately 20 residents were directly involved in the two resident-led projects. HRP-supported projects resulted in presentations at three local and three national conferences, one manuscript in press, and one manuscript in preparation. The resident project leaders felt that a strength and unique aspect of the HRP was the collaboration with co-residents. CONCLUSION: The HRP successfully created a culture of research and scholarship within the residency. The HRP leaders and residents that participated in HRP-supported projects expressed the most direct benefits from the program. All residents were exposed to research concepts and methods. Future directions for the HRP include selecting projects that maximize the number of resident participants and integrating a more robust research curriculum.