Enhancing HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Practices via an Educational Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV involves using antiretroviral drugs to prevent individuals at high risk from acquiring HIV infection. Most practicing primary care providers believe PrEP to be safe and effective, but less than half have prescribed or referred for PrEP. Attitudes and prescribing patterns among house officers have not been well described previously. STUDY QUESTION: Can an educational intervention enhance HIV PrEP practices among internal medicine house officers? STUDY DESIGN: This study relied on a pretest/posttest design. All categorical trainees at a medium-sized internal medicine program were offered a baseline survey to assess their knowledge on PrEP. This was followed by a PrEP-focused educational intervention and a postintervention survey. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: Likert scales captured perceptions regarding safety, effectiveness, barriers, factors that would promote PrEP use, potential side effects, impact on risk-taking behavior, and provider comfort level in assessing behavioral risks and in PrEP prescribing. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Significance was accepted for P < 0.05. RESULTS: Forty-eight (100%) trainees participated in the educational session, 45 (94%) in a preintervention survey, and 36 (75%) in a postintervention survey. Before PrEP training, 22% of respondents were unaware of PrEP, 78% believed PrEP was effective, 66% believed PrEP was safe, 62% had fair or poor awareness of side effects; 18% of residents had referred for or prescribed PrEP, and 31% believed they were likely to prescribe PrEP in the next 6 months. After the intervention, 94% of trainees believed PrEP was effective (P < 0.001), 92% believed PrEP was safe (P < 0.001), and two-thirds believed they were likely to prescribe PrEP in the next 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Brief, focused training on HIV prevention promotes awareness, acceptance, and likelihood of prescribing PrEP by internal medicine trainees.

The potential impact of mammographic breast arterial calcification on physician practices in a primary care setting.

Aim: This study sought to determine breast arterial calcification (BAC) prevalence in a primary care setting and its potential use in guiding further cardiovascular workup. Materials & methods: A radiologist reviewed 282 consecutive mammograms. Characteristics of BAC-positive and negative women were compared. Results: BAC prevalence was 34%. BAC-positive women were older (mean age: 60 vs 52, p < 0.001), had higher mean 10-year cardiac risk (11 vs 6%, p < 0.001), more hypertension (65 vs 40%, p < 0.001) and coronary artery disease (10 vs 2%, p = 0.0041), statin (50 vs 32%, p = 0.006) and aspirin use (28 vs 16%, p = 0.012). Thirty-seven percent (33/96) of BAC-positive women could potentially benefit from further cardiac testing. Conclusion: Mammography identifies BAC-positive women with low traditionally assessed cardiovascular risk who might benefit from further cardiovascular workup.

Milestones: a rapid assessment method for the Clinical Competency Committee.

INTRODUCTION: Educational milestones are now used to assess the developmental progress of all U.S. graduate medical residents during training. Twice annually, each program's Clinical Competency Committee (CCC) makes these determinations and reports its findings to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). The ideal way to conduct the CCC is not known. After finding that deliberations reliant upon the new milestones were time intensive, our internal medicine residency program tested an approach designed to produce rapid but accurate assessments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For this study, we modified our usual CCC process to include pre-meeting faculty ratings of resident milestones progress with in-meeting reconciliation of their ratings. Data were considered largely via standard report and presented in a pre-arranged pattern. Participants were surveyed regarding their perceptions of data management strategies and use of milestones. Reliability of competence assessments was estimated by comparing pre-/post-intervention class rank lists produced by individual committee members with a master class rank list produced by the collective CCC after full deliberation. RESULTS: Use of the study CCC approach reduced committee deliberation time from 25 min to 9 min per resident (p < 0.001). Committee members believed milestones improved their ability to identify and assess expected elements of competency development (p = 0.026). Individual committee member assessments of trainee progress agreed well with collective CCC assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Modification of the clinical competency process to include pre-meeting competence ratings with in-meeting reconciliation of these ratings led to shorter deliberation times, improved evaluator satisfaction and resulted in reliable milestone assessments.

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: inadequate knowledge by physicians.

BACKGROUND: The rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains relatively low. One potential barrier to higher rates is the lack of physician knowledge regarding CRC screening. The purpose of this study was to assess physicians' knowledge of (a) American Cancer Society (ACS) CRC screening guidelines for average-risk and high-risk patients, and (b) general colorectal cancer facts which support these guidelines. METHODS: We administered a questionnaire to internal medicine residents, internal medicine attendings and medical students who provide care to patients in a low-income, predominantly minority community, to compare their levels of knowledge regarding CRC screening. Mean knowledge scores were calculated based on the number of correct responses. RESULTS: Knowledge of ACS guidelines for average-risk patients was low, although it did increase directly with level of training: medical students obtained a mean score of 32%, residents 49%, and attendings 56% (p<0.001). Knowledge scores for high-risk patients were even lower, with fewer than half of the respondents offering correct answers. Mean knowledge scores of general CRC screening facts increased with level of training: medical students scored 31%, residents 38% and attendings 42% (p<0.001). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Knowledge of CRC screening guidelines for both average- and high-risk patients was suboptimal among the medical students, residents and attendings studied. Lack of knowledge about CRC is one barrier to screening that may contribute to underutilization of screening for minority populations. Further educational efforts should be targeted to these health care professionals.