Principles for Patient and Family Partnership in Care: An American College of Physicians Position Paper.

In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) examines the rationale for patient and family partnership in care and reviews outcomes associated with this concept, including greater adherence to care plans, improved satisfaction, and lower costs. The paper also explores and acknowledges challenges associated with implementing patient- and family-centered models of care. On the basis of a comprehensive literature review and a multistakeholder vetting process, the ACP's Patient Partnership in Healthcare Committee developed a set of principles that form the foundation for authentic patient and family partnership in care. The principles position patients in their rightful place at the center of care while acknowledging the importance of partnership between the care team and patient in improving health care and reducing harm. The principles state that patients and families should be treated with dignity and respect, be active partners in all aspects of their care, contribute to the development and improvement of health care systems, and be partners in the education of health care professionals. This paper also recommends ways to implement these principles in daily practice.

Firearm-related injury and death in the United States: a call to action from 8 health professional organizations and the American Bar Association.

Deaths and injuries related to firearms constitute a major public health problem in the United States. In response to firearm violence and other firearm-related injuries and deaths, an interdisciplinary, interprofessional group of leaders of 8 national health professional organizations and the American Bar Association, representing the official policy positions of their organizations, advocate a series of measures aimed at reducing the health and public health consequences of firearms. The specific recommendations include universal background checks of gun purchasers, elimination of physician "gag laws," restricting the manufacture and sale of military-style assault weapons and large-capacity magazines for civilian use, and research to support strategies for reducing firearm-related injuries and deaths. The health professional organizations also advocate for improved access to mental health services and avoidance of stigmatization of persons with mental and substance use disorders through blanket reporting laws. The American Bar Association, acting through its Standing Committee on Gun Violence, confirms that none of these recommendations conflict with the Second Amendment or previous rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Providing high-value, cost-conscious care: a critical seventh general competency for physicians.

There is general agreement that the U.S. economy cannot sustain the staggering economic burden imposed by the current and projected costs of health care. Whereas governmental approaches are focused primarily on decreasing spending for medical care, it is the responsibility of the medical profession to become cost-conscious and decrease unnecessary care that does not benefit patients but represents a substantial percentage of health care costs. At present, the 6 general competencies of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) that drive residency training place relatively little emphasis on residents' understanding of the need for stewardship of resources or for practicing in a cost-conscious fashion. Given the importance in today's health care system, the author proposes that cost-consciousness and stewardship of resources be elevated by the ACGME and the ABMS to the level of a new, seventh general competency. This will hopefully provide the necessary impetus to change the culture of the training environment and the practice patterns of both residents and their supervising faculty.

Diagnosis and management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a clinical practice guideline update from the American College of Physicians, American College of Chest Physicians, American Thoracic Society, and European Respiratory Society.

DESCRIPTION: This guideline is an official statement of the American College of Physicians (ACP), American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), American Thoracic Society (ATS), and European Respiratory Society (ERS). It represents an update of the 2007 ACP clinical practice guideline on diagnosis and management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and is intended for clinicians who manage patients with COPD. This guideline addresses the value of history and physical examination for predicting airflow obstruction; the value of spirometry for screening or diagnosis of COPD; and COPD management strategies, specifically evaluation of various inhaled therapies (anticholinergics, long-acting ß-agonists, and corticosteroids), pulmonary rehabilitation programs, and supplemental oxygen therapy. METHODS: This guideline is based on a targeted literature update from March 2007 to December 2009 to evaluate the evidence and update the 2007 ACP clinical practice guideline on diagnosis and management of stable COPD. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend that spirometry should be obtained to diagnose airflow obstruction in patients with respiratory symptoms (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Spirometry should not be used to screen for airflow obstruction in individuals without respiratory symptoms (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: For stable COPD patients with respiratory symptoms and FEV(1) between 60% and 80% predicted, ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS suggest that treatment with inhaled bronchodilators may be used (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: For stable COPD patients with respiratory symptoms and FEV(1) <60% predicted, ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend treatment with inhaled bronchodilators (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend that clinicians prescribe monotherapy using either long-acting inhaled anticholinergics or long-acting inhaled ß-agonists for symptomatic patients with COPD and FEV(1) <60% predicted. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Clinicians should base the choice of specific monotherapy on patient preference, cost, and adverse effect profile. RECOMMENDATION 5: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS suggest that clinicians may administer combination inhaled therapies (long-acting inhaled anticholinergics, long-acting inhaled ß-agonists, or inhaled corticosteroids) for symptomatic patients with stable COPD and FEV(1)<60% predicted (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 6: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend that clinicians should prescribe pulmonary rehabilitation for symptomatic patients with an FEV(1) <50% predicted (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Clinicians may consider pulmonary rehabilitation for symptomatic or exercise-limited patients with an FEV(1) >50% predicted. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 7: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend that clinicians should prescribe continuous oxygen therapy in patients with COPD who have severe resting hypoxemia (Pao(2) ≤55 mm Hg or Spo(2) ≤88%) (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Competency-based education and training in internal medicine.

Recent efforts to improve medical education include adopting a new framework based on 6 broad competencies defined by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. In this article, the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine Education Redesign Task Force II examines the advantages and challenges of a competency-based educational framework for medical residents. Efforts to refine specific competencies by developing detailed milestones are described, and examples of training program initiatives using a competency-based approach are presented. Meeting the challenges of a competency-based framework and supporting these educational innovations require a robust faculty development program. Challenges to competency-based education include teaching and evaluating the competencies related to practice-based learning and improvement and systems-based practice, as well as implementing a flexible time frame to achieve competencies. However, the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine Education Redesign Task Force II does not favor reducing internal medicine training to less than 36 months as part of competency-based education. Rather, the 36-month time frame should allow for remediation to address deficiencies in achieving competencies and for diverse enrichment experiences in such areas as quality of care and practice improvement for residents who have demonstrated skills in all required competencies.

Alternative approaches to ambulatory training: internal medicine residents' and program directors' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Internal medicine ambulatory training redesign, including recommendations to increase ambulatory training, is a focus of national discussion. Residents' and program directors' perceptions about ambulatory training models are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To describe internal medicine residents' and program directors' perceptions regarding ambulatory training duration, alternative ambulatory training models, and factors important for ambulatory education. DESIGN: National cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Internal medicine residents (N = 14,941) and program directors (N = 222) who completed the 2007 Internal Medicine In-Training Examination (IM-ITE) Residents Questionnaire or Program Directors Survey, representing 389 US residency programs. RESULTS: A total of 58.4% of program directors and 43.7% of residents preferred one-third or more training time in outpatient settings. Resident preferences for one-third or more outpatient training increased with higher levels of training (48.3% PGY3), female sex (52.7%), primary care program enrollment (64.8%), and anticipated outpatient-focused career, such as geriatrics. Most program directors (77.3%) and residents (58.4%) preferred training models containing weekly clinic. Although residents and program directors reported problems with competing inpatient-outpatient responsibilities (74.9% and 88.1%, respectively) and felt that absence of conflict with inpatient responsibilities is important for good outpatient training (69.4% and 74.2%, respectively), only 41.6% of residents and 22.7% of program directors supported models eliminating ambulatory sessions during inpatient rotations. CONCLUSIONS: Residents' and program directors' preferences for outpatient training differ from recommendations for increased ambulatory training. Discordance was observed between reported problems with conflicting inpatient-outpatient responsibilities and preferences for models maintaining longitudinal clinic during inpatient rotations. Further study regarding benefits and barriers of ambulatory redesign is needed.

Consensus Guidelines for Facilities Performing Outpatient Procedures: Evidence Over Ideology.

In policy and law, regulation of abortion is frequently treated differently from other health services. The safety of abortion is similar to that of other types of office- and clinic-based procedures, and facility requirements should be based on assuring high-quality, safe performance of all such procedures. False concerns for patient safety are being used as a justification for promoting regulations that specifically target abortion. The Project on Facility Guidelines for the Safe Performance of Primary Care and Gynecology Procedures in Offices and Clinics was undertaken by clinicians, consumers, and representatives from accrediting bodies to review the available evidence and guidelines that inform safe delivery of outpatient care. Our overall objective was to develop evidence-informed consensus guidelines to promote health care quality, safety, and accessibility. Our consensus determined that requiring facilities performing office-based procedures, including abortion, to meet standards beyond those currently in effect for all general medical offices and clinics is unjustified based on an analysis of available evidence. No safety concerns were identified.