Impact of an Interprofessional HIV Quality Improvement Team on Patient Care and Resident Learning Opportunities.

Introduction: Although human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) care is a recommended competency for family medicine training, many programs report a lack of HIV expertise among faculty. After the departure of faculty with HIV care experience, an interprofessional HIV quality improvement team (HIV-QIT) of physicians and pharmacists aimed to maintain on-site HIV care and retain learning opportunities for residents, using process improvement and panel reviews with a remote HIV specialist faculty member. Methods: This study reports on a multicycle quality improvement pilot project with pre- and postintervention chart reviews between December 2019 and May 2021. All patients received primary care and HIV-QIT chart reviews on-site. We compared patients with integrated HIV care on-site to those receiving external HIV specialty care. Primary outcomes included virologic suppression, CD4 count ≥200 cells/mm3, and adherence to guideline-recommended HIV care. In cycle 1 (January-June 2020), the HIV-QIT reviewed patient charts and sent guideline-based recommendations to physicians. In cycle 2 (July 2020-May 2021), the HIV-QIT implemented several HIV-specific processes, including decision support updates, note templates, order sets, and reference materials. Sustained process improvements included HIV panel chart audits every 3 to 6 months and subsequent provider education. Results: Of 29 patients, more than half (55%, n=16) received integrated HIV care at the primary care site. We found no significant difference in care quality measures between primary and specialty care. Barriers to care completion included missed or canceled follow-up visits, on-site phlebotomy service closures, and declined HIV services. Conclusions: The HIV-QIT maintained on-site HIV treatment and retained experiential learning opportunities through process improvement and specialist-supported care recommendations to primary care physicians.

Assessing HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Education in a Family Medicine Residency.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been purposefully incorporated into our family medicine resident training within existing didactic lectures, readings, and routine office visit precepting. This mixed-methods evaluation assesses training strategies for PrEP use via survey and drug use evaluation (DUE). METHODS: We surveyed 80 current and former family medicine residents (2014-2018) about their exposure to training components, self-reported confidence and competency in PrEP use, and practice behaviors reflecting CDC guidelines for patient eligibility and testing. In addition, we conducted a DUE of patients receiving PrEP from 2012-2018 for adherence to CDC guidelines. We report results with descriptive statistics, with χ2 analysis for group comparisons. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 56.3%. Among respondents, 46.7% have prescribed PrEP and 55.5% self-assessed as competent to prescribe PrEP, with the majority (84%) rating precepting as most effective for building competence. Those self-assessed as competent were more likely to endorse practice behaviors reflecting CDC guidelines for monitoring PrEP (P<.05). DUE identified 68 patients; 98.5% men who have sex with men. No women with recent sexually transmitted infections, nor persons who inject drugs (PWID) received PrEP. Initial testing completion ranged from 79.4% (HIV) to 54.4% (hepatitis B). Follow-up testing completion ranged from 41.5% (HIV) to 26.4% (syphilis). CONCLUSIONS: Residents rated precepting as the most effective training. However, DUE demonstrated that PrEP underuse, as well as suboptimal testing, limited experiential training on CDC guidelines. Curricular updates should further emphasize appropriate patient selection for PrEP, including women, minorities, and PWID, as well as robust testing, to continue expanding PrEP access.

Naming Silence and Inadequate Obstetric Care as Obstetric Violence is a Necessary Step for Change.

This response article addresses the questions raised in "How Gentle Must Violence Against Women be in Order to not be Violent? Rethinking the Word 'Violence; in Obstetric Settings" and concludes that naming violence is critical for describing people's experiences of such violence and for addressing the structures and contexts that create and fuel such violence, not for judgment but for accountability and change. Impact, outcome, and, at times, processes-rather than intention-should underpin applications of the term violence; naming violence does not disempower women, but rather naming structural, systemic, and institutional violence demands acknowledgment, accountability, and responsibility for its effects on both patients and clinicians; and, finally, while the unintended consequences of using such a term may present challenges, they do not outweigh the importance of naming structural violence in health-related systems to identify practices and processes that discriminate, disempower, harm, and oppress.