Professionalism of Admitting and Consulting Services and Trauma Patient Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether trauma patients managed by an admitting or consulting service with a high proportion of physicians exhibiting patterns of unprofessional behaviors are at greater risk of complications or death. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Trauma care requires high-functioning interdisciplinary teams where professionalism, particularly modeling respect and communicating effectively, is essential. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from 9 level I trauma centers that participated in a national trauma registry linked with data from a national database of unsolicited patient complaints. The cohort included trauma patients admitted January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2017. The exposure of interest was care by 1 or more high-risk services, defined as teams with a greater proportion of physicians with high numbers of patient complaints. The study outcome was death or complications within 30 days. RESULTS: Among the 71,046 patients in the cohort, 9553 (13.4%) experienced the primary outcome of complications or death, including 1875 of 16,107 patients (11.6%) with 0 high-risk services, 3788 of 28,085 patients (13.5%) with 1 high-risk service, and 3890 of 26,854 patients (14.5%) with 2+ highrisk services (P < 0.001). In logistic regression models adjusting for relevant patient, injury, and site characteristics, patients who received care from 1 or more high-risk services were at 24.1% (95% confidence interval 17.2% to 31.3%; P < 0.001) greater risk of experiencing the primary study outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients who received care from at least 1 service with a high proportion of physicians modeling unprofessional behavior were at an increased risk of death or complications.

The Midpeninsula Health Service: action research using small primary care groups to provide evidence-based medicine that empowers patients while continuously improving quality and lowering costs.

OBJECTIVES: A Joint Planning Committee Report was issued in 1974 exploring how Stanford University might itself provide primary care to students, faculty, employees and their dependents at low cost. The report called for the creation of a health maintenance organization owned by its subscribers in affiliation with Stanford Medical Center. However, because the report was dismissed by the dean of the School of Medicine as being unworkable, the Midpeninsula Health Service (MHS) began operating as an unaffiliated, nonprofit health plan in downtown Palo Alto in January 1976. The MHS's planning, early operation, move to the Stanford campus, financial viability and ultimate fate are examined as an example of action research in health care. METHODS: Source documents were examined by the authors, a founding MHS board member and its two inaugural medical directors, in compiling a 30-year organizational history. RESULTS: The MHS was remarkably prescient in its early use of small primary care groups that included midlevel practitioners, the principles of evidence-based medicine, the participation of patients in self-care activities, and a commitment to the continuous monitoring and improvement of quality. Imputed annualized costs of care were 30% lower than contemporary fee-for-service care and 20% lower than that of Kaiser, with no discernible difference in health outcomes. CONCLUSION: Action research methods can be useful in identifying and testing potential solutions to vexing problems in health care delivery.

A new instrument to measure appropriateness of services in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a new instrument for judging the appropriateness of three key services (new prescription, diagnostic test, and referral) as delivered in primary care outpatient visits. DESIGN: Candidate items were generated by a seven-member expert panel, using a five-step nominal technique, for each of three service categories in primary care: new prescriptions, diagnostic tests, and referrals. Expert panelists and a convenience sample of 95 community-based primary care physicians ranked items for (i) importance and (ii) feasibility of ascertaining from a typical office chart record. Resulting items were used to construct a measure of appropriateness using principals of structured implicit review. Two physician reviewers used this measure to judge the appropriateness of 421 services from 160 outpatient visits. SETTING: Primary care practices in a staff model health maintenance organization and a large preferred provider network. MEASURES: Inter-rater agreement was measured using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa statistic. RESULTS: For overall appropriateness, the ICC and kappa were 0.52 and 0.44 for new medication, 0.35 and 0.32 for diagnostic test, and 0.40 and 0.41 for referral, respectively. Only 3% of services were judged to be inappropriate by either reviewer. The proportion of services judged to be less than definitely appropriate by one or both reviewers was 56% for new medication, 31% for diagnostic test, and 22% for referral. CONCLUSIONS: This new measure of appropriateness of primary care services has fair inter-rater agreement for new medications and referrals, similar to appropriateness measures of other general services, but poor agreement for diagnostic tests. It may be useful as a tool to assess the appropriateness of common primary care services in studies of health care quality, but is not suitable for evaluating performance of individual physicians.