Role of norms in variation in cancer centers' end-of-life quality: qualitative case study protocol.

BACKGROUND: A critical barrier to improving the quality of end-of-life (EOL) cancer care is our lack of understanding of the mechanisms underlying variation in EOL treatment intensity. This study aims to fill this gap by identifying 1) organizational and provider practice norms at major US cancer centers, and 2) how these norms influence provider decision making heuristics and patient expectations for EOL care, particularly for minority patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This is a multi-center, qualitative case study at six National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) Comprehensive Cancer Centers. We will theoretically sample centers based upon National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsed EOL quality metrics and demographics to ensure heterogeneity in EOL intensity and region. A multidisciplinary team of clinician and non-clinician researchers will conduct direct observations, semi-structured interviews, and artifact collection. Participants will include: 1) cancer center and clinical service line administrators; 2) providers from medical, surgical, and radiation oncology; palliative or supportive care; intensive care; hospital medicine; and emergency medicine who see patients with cancer and have high clinical practice volume or high local influence (provider interviews and observations); and 3) adult patients with metastatic solid tumors and whom the provider would not be surprised if they died in the next 12 months and their caregivers (patient and caregiver interviews). Leadership interviews will probe about EOL institutional norms and organization. We will observe inpatient and outpatient care for two weeks. Provider interviews will use vignettes to probe explicit and implicit motivations for treatment choices. Semi-structured interviews with patients near EOL, or their family members and caregivers will explore past, current, and future decisions related to their cancer care. We will import transcribed field notes and interviews into Dedoose software for qualitative data management and analysis, and we will develop and apply a deductive and inductive codebook to the data. DISCUSSION: This study aims to improve our understanding of organizational and provider practice norms pertinent to EOL care in U.S. cancer centers. This research will ultimately be used to inform a provider-oriented intervention to improve EOL care for racial and ethnic minority patients with advanced cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ; NCT03780816 ; December 19, 2018.

Development of a handheld computer documentation system to enhance an integrated primary care clerkship.

Documentation systems are used by medical schools and residency programs to record the clinical experiences of their learners. The authors developed a system for their school's (Dartmouth's) multidisciplinary primary care clerkship (family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics) that documents students' clinical and educational experiences and provides feedback designed to enhance clinical training utilizing a timely data-reporting system. The five critical components of the system are (1) a valid, reliable and feasible data-collection instrument; (2) orientation of and ongoing support for student and faculty users; (3) generation and distribution of timely feedback reports to students, preceptors, and clerkship directors; (4) adequate financial and technical support; and (5) a database design that allows for overall evaluation of educational outcomes. The system, whose development began in 1997, generated and distributed approximately 150 peer-comparison reports of clinical teaching experiences to students, preceptors, and course directors during 2001, in formats that are easy to interpret and use to individualize learning. The authors present report formats and annual cost estimate comparisons of paper- and computer-based system development and maintenance, which range from $35,935 to $53,780 for the paper-based system and from $46,820 to $109,308 for the computer-based system. They mention ongoing challenges in components of the system. They conclude that a comprehensive documentation and feedback system provides an essential infrastructure for the evaluation and enhancement of community-based teaching and learning in primary care ambulatory clerkships, whether separate or integrated.

An analysis of students' clinical experiences in an integrated primary care clerkship.

PURPOSE: Combining complementary clinical content into an integrated clerkship curriculum should enhance students' abilities to develop skills relevant to multiple disciplines, but how educational opportunities in primary care ambulatory settings complement each other is unknown. The authors conducted an observational analytic study to explore where opportunities exist to apply clinical skills during a 16-week integrated primary care clerkship (eight weeks of family medicine, four weeks of ambulatory pediatrics, and four weeks of ambulatory internal medicine). METHOD: Using handheld computers, students recorded common problems, symptoms, and diagnoses they saw. The students also recorded information about the educational process of the clerkship. Two data files were created from the database. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the students' clerkship experiences, and ANOVA was used to evaluate differences among these blocks within the clerkship. RESULTS: Students encountered different frequencies of presenting symptoms, the majority of which occurred in pediatrics (23.2 per student per week versus 16.3 in medicine and 16.8 in family medicine; p =.01). Students provided more behavioral change counseling in family medicine (5.2 episodes per student per week versus 4.2 and 2.0 in internal medicine and pediatrics, respectively; p =.01), and they performed more clinical procedures in family medicine (1.9 per student per week versus 0.6 and 1.1 in pediatrics and internal medicine, respectively; p =.001). Students were more likely to encounter specific conditions in internal medicine (35.3 per student per week versus 30.0 and 21.4 in family medicine and pediatrics, respectively; p =.01). Elements of the teaching and learning processes also differed by clerkship. CONCLUSIONS: Very little overlap was found in symptoms, conditions, procedures, and other educational opportunities in the ambulatory pediatrics, internal medicine, and family medicine blocks that constitute the integrated primary care clerkship. The blocks provided different and complementary learning opportunities for students. These findings will assist in clerkship planning and in guiding students to seek opportunities that will ensure educational excellence.