An Analysis of Trainee Status of the Primary Care Physician and Ambulatory Care Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Prior studies report disparities in outcomes for patients cared for by trainees versus faculty physicians at academic medical centers. This study examined the effect of having a trainee as the primary care physician versus a faculty member on routine population health outcomes after adjusting for differences in social determinants of health and primary care retention. METHOD: This cohort study assessed 38,404 patients receiving primary care at an academic hospital-affiliated practice by 60 faculty and 110 internal medicine trainees during academic year 2019. The effect of primary care practitioner trainee status on routine ambulatory care metrics was modeled using log-binomial regression with generalized estimating equation methods to account for physician-level clustering. Risk estimates before and after adjusting for social determinants of health and loss to follow-up are presented. RESULTS: Trainee and faculty cohorts had similar distributions of acute illness burden; however, patients in the trainee cohort were significantly more likely to identify as a race other than White (2,476 [52.6%] vs 14,785 [38.5%], P < .001), live in a zip code associated with poverty (1,688 [35.9%] vs 9,122 [23.8%], P < .001), use public health insurance (1,021 [21.7%] vs 6,108 [15.9%], P < .001), and have limited English proficiency (1,415 [30.1%] vs 5,203 [13.6%], P < .001). In adjusted analyses, trainee status of primary care physician was not associated with lack of breast cancer screening but was associated with missed opportunities to screen for colorectal cancer (relative risk [RR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.88), control type 2 diabetes mellitus (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.94), and control hypertension (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physician trainee status was associated with poorer quality of care in the ambulatory setting after adjusting for differences in socioeconomic factors and loss to follow-up, highlighting a potential ambulatory training gap.

Low Rate of Completion of Recommended Tests and Referrals in an Academic Primary Care Practice with Resident Trainees.

BACKGROUND: A frequent, preventable cause of diagnostic errors involves failure to follow up on diagnostic tests, referrals, and symptoms-termed "failure to close the diagnostic loop." This is particularly challenging in a resident practice where one third of physicians graduate annually, and rates of patient loss due to these transitions may lead to more opportunities for failure to close diagnostic loops. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of failure of loop closure in a resident primary care clinic compared to rates in the faculty practice and identify factors contributing to failure. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all patient visits from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, at two academic medical center-based primary care practices where residents and faculty practice in the same setting. The primary outcome was prevalence of failure to close the loop for (1) dermatology referrals, (2) colonoscopy, and (3) cardiac stress testing. The primary predictor was resident vs. faculty status of the ordering provider. The authors present an unadjusted analysis and the results of a multivariable logistic regression analysis incorporating all patient factors to determine their association with loop closure. RESULTS: Of 12,282 orders for referrals and tests for the three studied areas, 1,929 (15.7%) were ordered by a resident physician. Of resident orders for all three tests, 52.9% were completed within the designated time vs. 58.4% for orders placed by attending physicians (p < 0.01). In an unadjusted analysis by test type, a similar trend was seen for colonoscopy (51.4% completion rate for residents vs. 57.5% for attending physicians, p < 0.01) and for cardiac stress testing (55.7% completion rate for residents vs. 61.2% for attending physicians), though a difference was not seen for dermatology referrals (64.2% completion rate for residents vs. 63.7% for attending physicians). In an adjusted analysis, patients with resident orders were less likely than attendings to close the loop for all test types combined (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.79-0.98), with low rates of test completion for both physician groups. CONCLUSION: Loop closure for three diagnostic interventions was low for patients in both faculty and resident primary care clinics, with lower loop closure rates in resident clinics. Failure to close diagnostic loops presents a safety challenge in primary care and is of particular concern for training programs.

Unmasking a Vulnerable Patient Care Process: A Qualitative Study Describing the Current State of Resident Continuity Clinic in a Nationwide Cohort of Internal Medicine Residency Programs.

BACKGROUND: Residents serve as access points to the health care system for the most vulnerable patients in the United States. Two large academic medical centers have identified performance gaps between resident and faculty physicians. Our intent in this study was to measure the scope of resident-faculty performance gaps in a nationwide sample and identify potential targets for intervention. METHODS: This is a qualitative study of 12 residency programs representing 4 out of 5 US regions. Main measures include perceptions of population health performance in resident versus faculty populations, description of precepting model employed, perceptions of differences between resident and faculty patients, and handoff processes at the time of graduation. RESULTS: Of the 8 programs that routinely compare resident and faculty performance, half had confirmed the presence of outcome disparities on routine population health metrics. Seven out of 12 programs employ a 1:1 preceptor:resident comanagement structure. Ten of the 12 programs perceived that resident panels were more psychosocially complex; 2 had a formal process to measure this. Four of the 12 programs had a process to monitor patient loss to follow-up after resident transition. CONCLUSIONS: Resident-faculty performance disparities may be a widespread problem nationally. Potential targets for intervention include increased preceptor engagement, improving access for empanelment in the faculty practice for vulnerable patient populations, and employing more robust handoff practices. Integrating a culture of quality improvement to continuously monitor important educational metrics such as outcome disparities, panel demographics, educational continuity, and patient loss in the resident panel should be a routine practice for academic health centers.

"Patient Lost to Follow-up": Opportunities and Challenges in Delivering Primary Care in Academic Medical Centers.

BACKGROUND: Academic health centers (AHCs) face unique challenges in providing continuity to a medically and socially complex patient population. Little is known about what drives patient loss in these settings. OBJECTIVE: Determine physician- and patient-based factors associated with patient loss in AHCs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, embedded qualitative analysis. SETTING: Academic health center. PARTICIPANTS: All visits from 7/1/2014 to 6/30/2019; 89 physicians (51%) participated in a qualitative analysis. MEASURES: Physician-based factors (gender, years of service, hours of practice per week, trainee status, and departure during the study period) and patient-based factors (age, gender, race, limited English proficiency, public health insurance, chronic illness burden, and severe psychiatric illness burden) and their association with patient loss to follow-up, defined as a lapse in provider visit greater than 3 years. RESULTS: We identified 402,415 visits for 41,876 distinct patients. A total of 9332 (22.3%) patients were lost to follow-up. Patient factors associated with loss to follow-up included patient age < 40 (HR 3.12 (2.94-3.33)), identification as non-white (HR 1.07 (1.10-1.13)), limited English proficiency (HR 1.18 (1.04-1.33)), and use of public insurance (HR 1.12 (1.04-1.21)). Provider factors associated with patient loss included trainee status (HR 3.74 (2.43-5.75)) and having recently departed from the practice (HR 1.98, 1.66-2.35). Structured interviews with clinical providers revealed unfavorable relationships with providers and staff (35%), inconvenience accessing primary care (23%), unreliable health insurance (18%), difficulty accessing one's primary care provider (14%), and patient/provider transitions (10%) as reasons for patient loss. CONCLUSIONS: Younger patient age, markers of social vulnerability, and physician transiency are associated with patient loss at AHCs, providing targets to improve continuity of care within these settings.

Effect of an Immersive Primary Care Training Program on Educational and Clinical Outcomes in an Internal Medicine Residency Training Program: Meeting the Training Needs of a Modern-Day Physician Workforce.

BACKGROUND: Residents planning careers in primary care have unique training needs that are not addressed in traditional internal medicine training programs, where there is a focus on inpatient training. There are no evidence-based approaches for primary care training. OBJECTIVES: Design and test the effect of a novel immersive primary care training program on educational and clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Nested intervention study. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Twelve primary care residents, 86 of their categorical peers, and an 11-year historical cohort of 69 primary care trainees in a large urban internal medicine residency training program. INTERVENTIONS: Two 6-month blocks of primary care immersion alternating with two 6-month blocks of standard residency training during the second and third post-graduate years. MAIN MEASURES: Total amount of ambulatory and inpatient training time, subjective and objective educational outcomes, clinical performance on cancer screening, and chronic disease management outcomes. KEY RESULTS: Participants in the intervention increased ambulatory training in both general medicine and specialty medicine and still met all ACGME training requirements. Residents reported improved subjective educational outcomes on a variety of chronic disease management topics and ambulatory care skills. They reported higher satisfaction with the amount of ambulatory training (4.3/5 vs. 3.6/5, p=0.008), attended more ambulatory clinics (242 vs. 154, p<0.001), and carried larger, more complicated panels (173 vs. 90 patients, p<0.001). They also performed better on diabetes management (86% vs. 76% control, p<0.001). Alumni who completed the intervention reported higher primary care career preparation (79% response rate) than those who did not (85% response rate) among an 11-year cohort of primary care alumni (4/5 vs. 3/5, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A primary care training program that provides clinical immersion in the ambulatory setting improved educational outcomes for trainees and clinical outcomes for their patients. Providing more training in the ambulatory environment should be a priority in graduate medical education.

Defining the Resident Continuity Clinic Panel Along Patient Outcomes: a Health Equity Opportunity.

BACKGROUND: Continuity clinics are a critical component of outpatient internal medicine training. Little is known about the population of patients cared for by residents and how these physicians perform. OBJECTIVES: To compare resident and faculty performance on standard population health measures. To identify potential associations with differences in performance, specifically medical complexity, psychosocial vulnerability, and rates of patient loss. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Large academic primary care clinic caring for 40,000 patients. One hundred ten internal medicine residents provide primary care for 9,000 of these patients; the remainder are cared for by faculty. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive analysis using review of the medical record and hospital administrative data. MAIN MEASURES: We compared resident and faculty performance on standard population health measures, including cancer screening rates, chronic disease care, acute and chronic medical complexity, psychosocial vulnerability, and rates of patient loss. We evaluated the success of resident transition by measuring rates of kept continuity visits 18 months after graduation. KEY RESULTS: Performance on all clinical outcomes was significantly better for faculty compared to residents. Despite similar levels of medical complexity compared to faculty patients, resident patients had significantly higher levels of psychosocial vulnerability across all measured domains, including health literacy, economic vulnerability, psychiatric illness burden, high-risk behaviors, and patient engagement. Resident patients experienced higher rates of patient loss than faculty patients (38.5 vs. 18.8%) with only 46.5% of resident patients with a kept continuity appointment in the practice 18 months after graduation. CONCLUSIONS: In this large academic practice, resident performance on standard population health measures was significantly lower than faculty. This may be explained in part by the burden of psychosocial vulnerability of their patients and systems that do not effectively transition patients after graduation. These findings present an opportunity to improve structural equity for these vulnerable patients and developing physicians.

Effect of a Flipped Classroom on Knowledge Acquisition and Retention in an Internal Medicine Residency Program.

BACKGROUND: The flipped classroom is a teaching approach with strong evidence for effectiveness in undergraduate medical education. Objective data for its implementation in graduate medical education are limited. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the efficacy of the flipped classroom compared with standard approaches on knowledge acquisition and retention in residency education. METHODS: During academic year 2016-2017, 63 medical interns in a large academic internal medical residency program on their ambulatory block were randomized to a flipped classroom or standard classroom during a 6-hour cardiovascular prevention curriculum. The primary outcome was performance on a 51-question knowledge test at preintervention, immediate postintervention, and 3- to 6-month postintervention (delayed postintervention). Secondary outcomes included satisfaction with the instructional method and preparation time for the flipped classroom versus standard approach. We also examined feasibility and barriers to the flipped classroom experience. RESULTS: All 63 interns (100%) responded during the preintervention period, 59 of 63 (94%) responded during the postintervention period, and 36 of 63 (57%) responded during the delayed postintervention. The flipped classroom approach significantly improved knowledge acquisition immediately after the curriculum compared with the standard approach (knowledge test scores 77% versus 65%, P < .0001). This effect was sustained several months later (70% versus 62%, P = .0007). Participants were equally satisfied with the flipped classroom and standard classroom. CONCLUSIONS: A flipped classroom showed greater effectiveness in knowledge gain compared with a standard approach in an ambulatory residency environment.

Preventability of Early Versus Late Hospital Readmissions in a National Cohort of General Medicine Patients.

Background: Many experts believe that hospitals with more frequent readmissions provide lower-quality care, but little is known about how the preventability of readmissions might change over the postdischarge time frame. Objective: To determine whether readmissions within 7 days of discharge differ from those between 8 and 30 days after discharge with respect to preventability. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: 10 academic medical centers in the United States. Patients: 822 adults readmitted to a general medicine service. Measurements: For each readmission, 2 site-specific physician adjudicators used a structured survey instrument to determine whether it was preventable and measured other characteristics. Results: Overall, 36.2% of early readmissions versus 23.0% of late readmissions were preventable (median risk difference, 13.0 percentage points [interquartile range, 5.5 to 26.4 percentage points]). Hospitals were identified as better locations for preventing early readmissions (47.2% vs. 25.5%; median risk difference, 22.8 percentage points [interquartile range, 17.9 to 31.8 percentage points]), whereas outpatient clinics (15.2% vs. 6.6%; median risk difference, 10.0 percentage points [interquartile range, 4.6 to 12.2 percentage points]) and home (19.4% vs. 14.0%; median risk difference, 5.6 percentage points [interquartile range, -6.1 to 17.1 percentage points]) were better for preventing late readmissions. Limitation: Physician adjudicators were not blinded to readmission timing, community hospitals were not included in the study, and readmissions to nonstudy hospitals were not included in the results. Conclusion: Early readmissions were more likely to be preventable and amenable to hospital-based interventions. Late readmissions were less likely to be preventable and were more amenable to ambulatory and home-based interventions. Primary Funding Source: Association of American Medical Colleges.

Preventability of early vs. late readmissions in an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if the 30-day unplanned hospital readmission rate is a plausible accountability metric. OBJECTIVE: Compare preventability of hospital readmissions, between an early period [0-7 days post-discharge] and a late period [8-30 days post-discharge]. Compare causes of readmission, and frequency of markers of clinical instability 24h prior to discharge between early and late readmissions. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS: 120 patient readmissions in an academic medical center between 1/1/2009-12/31/2010. MEASURES: Sum-score based on a standard algorithm that assesses preventability of each readmission based on blinded hospitalist review; average causation score for seven types of adverse events; rates of markers of clinical instability within 24h prior to discharge. RESULTS: Readmissions were significantly more preventable in the early compared to the late period [median preventability sum score 8.5 vs. 8.0, p = 0.03]. There were significantly more management errors as causative events for the readmission in the early compared to the late period [mean causation score [scale 1-6, 6 most causal] 2.0 vs. 1.5, p = 0.04], and these errors were significantly more preventable in the early compared to the late period [mean preventability score 1.9 vs 1.5, p = 0.03]. Patients readmitted in the early period were significantly more likely to have mental status changes documented 24h prior to hospital discharge than patients readmitted in the late period [12% vs. 0%, p = 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: Readmissions occurring in the early period were significantly more preventable. Early readmissions were associated with more management errors, and mental status changes 24h prior to discharge. Seven-day readmissions may be a better accountability measure.

Differences between early and late readmissions among patients: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Early and late readmissions may have different causal factors, requiring different prevention strategies. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether predictors of readmission change within 30 days after discharge. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010. MEASUREMENTS: Factors related to the index hospitalization (acute illness burden, inpatient care process factors, and clinical indicators of instability at discharge) and unrelated factors (chronic illness burden and social determinants of health) and how they affect early readmissions (0 to 7 days after discharge) and late readmissions (8 to 30 days after discharge). RESULTS: 13 334 admissions, representing 8078 patients, were included in the analysis. Early readmissions were associated with markers of acute illness burden, including length of hospital stay (odds ratio [OR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.03]) and whether a rapid response team was called for assessment (OR, 1.48 [CI, 1.15 to 1.89]); markers of chronic illness burden, including receiving a medication indicating organ failure (OR, 1.19 [CI, 1.02 to 1.40]); and social determinants of health, including barriers to learning (OR, 1.18 [CI, 1.01 to 1.38]). Early readmissions were less likely if a patient was discharged between 8:00 a.m. and 12:59 p.m. (OR, 0.76 [CI, 0.58 to 0.99]). Late readmissions were associated with markers of chronic illness burden, including receiving a medication indicating organ failure (OR, 1.24 [CI, 1.08 to 1.41]) or hemodialysis (OR, 1.61 [CI, 1.12 to 2.17]), and social determinants of health, including barriers to learning (OR, 1.24 [CI, 1.09 to 1.42]) and having unsupplemented Medicare or Medicaid (OR, 1.16 [CI, 1.01 to 1.33]). LIMITATION: Readmissions were ascertained at 1 institution. CONCLUSION: The time frame of 30 days after hospital discharge may not be homogeneous. Causal factors and readmission prevention strategies may differ for the early versus late periods. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Health Resources and Services Administration, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Harvard Catalyst, and Harvard University.

Effect of a systems intervention on the quality and safety of patient handoffs in an internal medicine residency program.

BACKGROUND: Poor quality handoffs have been identified as a major patient safety issue. In residency programs, problematic handoffs may be an unintended consequence of duty-hour restrictions, and key data are frequently omitted from written handoffs because of the lack of standardization of content. OBJECTIVE: Determine whether an intervention that facilitates face-to-face communication supported by an electronic template improves the quality and safety of handoffs. DESIGN: Before-after trial. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine interns providing nighttime coverage over 132 intern shifts, representing ∼9,200 handoffs. INTERVENTIONS: Two interventions were implemented serially-an alteration of the shift model to facilitate face-to-face verbal communication between the primary and nighttime covering physicians and an electronic template for the day-to-night handoff. MEASUREMENTS: Overall satisfaction and handoff quality were measured using a survey tool administered at the end of each intern shift. Written handoff quality, specifically the documentation of key components, was also assessed before and after the template intervention by study investigators. Interns used the survey tool to report patient safety events related to poor quality handoffs, which were validated by study investigators. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses comparing intern cohorts with similar levels of training, overall satisfaction with the new handoff processes improved significantly (p < 0.001) post intervention. Verbal handoff quality (4/10 measures) and written handoff quality (5/6 measures) also improved significantly. Study investigators also found significant improvement in documentation of key components in the written handoff. Interns reported significantly fewer reported data omissions (p = 0.001) and a non-significant reduction in near misses (p = 0.056), but no significant difference in adverse events (p = 0.41) post intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Redesign of shift models common in residency programs to minimize the number of handoffs and facilitate face-to-face communication, along with implementation of electronic handoff templates, improves the quality of handoffs in a learning environment.

Activation of estrogen receptor-alpha by the anion nitrite.

In this study, the ability of nitrite and nitrate to mimic the effects of estradiol on growth and gene expression was measured in the human breast cancer cell line MCF-7. Similar to estradiol, treatment of MCF-7 cells with either 1 mumol/L nitrite or 1 mumol/L nitrate resulted in approximately 4-fold increase in cell growth and 2.3-fold to 3-fold increase in progesterone receptor (PgR), pS2, and cathepsin D mRNAs that were blocked by the antiestrogen ICI 182,780. The anions also recruited estrogen receptor-alpha (ERalpha) to the pS2 promoter and activated exogenously expressed ERalpha when tested in transient cotransfection assays. To determine whether nitrite or nitrate was the active anion, diphenyleneiodonium was used to inhibit oxidation/reduction reactions in the cell. The ability of diphenyleneiodonium to block the effects of nitrate, but not nitrite, on the induction of PgR mRNA and the activation of exogenously expressed ERalpha suggests that nitrite is the active anion. Concentrations of nitrite, as low as 100 nmol/L, induced a significant increase in PgR mRNA, suggesting that physiologically and environmentally relevant doses of the anion activate ERalpha. Nitrite activated the chimeric receptor Gal-ER containing the DNA-binding domain of GAL-4 and the ligand-binding domain of ERalpha and blocked the binding of estradiol to the receptor, suggesting that the anion activates ERalpha through the ligand-binding domain. Mutational analysis identified the amino acids Cys381, His516, Lys520, Lys529, Asn532, and His547 as important for nitrite activation of the receptor.