American Board of Internal Medicine Nephrology Procedure Requirements for Initial Certification: Time for a Change and Pursuing Consensus in the Nephrology Community.

In 1988, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) defined essential procedural skills in nephrology, and candidates for ABIM certification were required to present evidence of possessing the skills necessary for placement of temporary dialysis vascular access, hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and percutaneous renal biopsy. In 1996, continuous renal replacement therapy was added to the list of nephrology requirements. These procedure requirements have not been modified since 1996 while the practice of nephrology has changed dramatically. In March 2021, the ABIM Nephrology Board embarked on a policy journey to revise the procedure requirements for nephrology certification. With the guidance of nephrology diplomates, training program directors, professional and patient organizations, and other stakeholders, the ABIM Nephrology Board revised the procedure requirements to reflect current practice and national priorities. The approved changes include the Opportunity to Train standard for placement of temporary dialysis catheters, percutaneous kidney biopsies, and home hemodialysis, which better reflects the current state of training in most training programs, and the new requirements for home dialysis therapies training will align with the national priority to address the underuse of home dialysis therapies. This perspective details the ABIM process for considering changes to the certification procedure requirements and how ABIM collaborated with the larger nephrology community in considering revisions and additions to these requirements.

Which Outreach Modes Improve Response Rates to Physician Surveys? Lessons from an Experiment at the American Board of Internal Medicine.

Physicians are a notoriously difficult group to survey due to a low propensity to respond. We investigate the relative effectiveness of reminder phone calls, pre-notification postcards, mailed paper surveys, and $1 upfront incentives for boosting survey response rate by embedding a randomized experiment into a mixed-mode operational survey at the American Board of Internal Medicine in 2019. Expected response rates and average marginal effects for each follow-up method were computed from a logistic regression model. The control group which only received email reminders achieved a response rate of 18.2%, 95% CI: (15.0%, 21.9%). The intervention group which included reminder emails, pre-notification postcards, and mailed paper surveys with $1 incentives achieved a response rate of 43.1%, 95% CI: (38.8%, 47.5%). Mailed paper surveys yielded the largest percentage point increase in response rate of 11.2%, 95% CI: (7.3%, 15.2%), while $1 upfront monetary incentives and phone call reminders increased survey response rate by 5.9%, 95% CI: (1.6%, 10.2%) and 5.5%, 95% CI: (2.6%, 8.3%) respectively. Pre-notification postcards are associated with a 2.0%, 95% CI: (-1.7%, 5.6%) increase in survey response rate. Cost-effectiveness for each method is discussed. This research supports optimal decision making for researchers when planning a physician survey study.

Remind Me Again: Physician Response to Web Surveys: The Effect of Email Reminders Across 11 Opinion Survey Efforts at the American Board of Internal Medicine from 2017 to 2019.

For survey researchers, physicians in the United States are a difficult-to-reach subgroup. The purpose of this study is to quantify the effect of email reminders on web-based survey response rates targeting physicians. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 11 American Board of Internal Medicine surveys from 2017 to 2019. We compute aggregate response rates for the periods between weekly email contacts across the 11 surveys, while controlling for survey time to complete, physician age, gender, region, board certification status, and initial exam performance. The overall predicted response rate after six weekly email contacts was 23.7%, 95% CI: (17.1%, 33.0%). Across the 11 surveys, we found response rate for the first period to be 8.9%, 95% CI: (6.5%, 12.2%). We observed a 50% decrease in response from the first to the second period, which had a 4.4%, 95% CI: (3.2%, 6.2%), response rate. The third and fourth response periods yielded similar response rates of 3.0%, 95% CI: (2.3%, 3.9%) and 3.3%, 95%CI: (2.4%, 4.6%), respectively. The fifth and sixth response periods yielded similar response rates of 2.2%, 95%CI: (1.5%, 3.3%) and 1.9%, 95% CI: (1.3%, 2.7%), respectively. The results were further stratified into different levels of participant survey interest, and are helpful for cost and sample size considerations when designing a physician survey.

Changes in Stress and Workplace Shortages Reported by U.S. Critical Care Physicians Treating Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Eleven months into the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the country faces accelerating rates of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Little is known about the experiences of critical care physicians caring for the sickest coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Our goal is to understand how high stress levels and shortages faced by these physicians during Spring 2020 have evolved. DESIGN: We surveyed (October 23, 2020 to November 16, 2020) U.S. critical care physicians treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients who participated in a National survey earlier in the pandemic (April 23, 2020 to May 3, 2020) regarding their stress and shortages they faced. SETTING: ICU. PATIENTS: Coronavirus disease 2019 patients. INTERVENTION: Irrelevant. MEASUREMENT: Physician emotional distress/physical exhaustion: low (not at all/not much), moderate, or high (a lot/extreme). Shortage indicators: insufficient ICU-trained staff and shortages in medication, equipment, or personal protective equipment requiring protocol changes. MAIN RESULTS: Of 2,375 U.S. critical care attending physicians who responded to the initial survey, we received responses from 1,356 (57.1% response rate), 97% of whom (1,278) recently treated coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Two thirds of physicians (67.6% [864]) reported moderate or high levels of emotional distress in the Spring versus 50.7% (763) in the Fall. Reports of staffing shortages persisted with 46.5% of Fall respondents (594) reporting a staff shortage versus 48.3% (617) in the Spring. Meaningful shortages of medication and equipment reported in the Spring were largely alleviated. Although personal protective equipment shortages declined by half, they remained substantial. CONCLUSIONS: Stress, staffing, and, to a lesser degree, personal protective equipment shortages faced by U.S. critical care physicians remain high. Stress levels were higher among women. Considering the persistence of these findings, rising levels of infection nationally raise concerns about the capacity of the U.S. critical care system to meet ongoing and future demands.

How Physicians Prepare for Maintenance of Certification Exams: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Little is known about how board-certified physicians prepare for their periodic maintenance of certification (MOC) examinations. This qualitative study explores how physicians experience MOC exam preparation: how they prepare for the exams and decide what to study and how exam preparation compares with what they normally do to keep their medical knowledge current. METHOD: Between September 2016 and March 2017, the authors interviewed 80 primary care physicians who had recently taken either the American Board of Family Medicine or American Board of Internal Medicine MOC exam. They analyzed transcripts and notes from these interviews looking for patterns and emergent themes, using the constant comparative method and a social practice theory perspective. RESULTS: Most interviewees studied for their MOC exams by varying from their routines for staying current with medical knowledge, both by engaging with a different scope of information and by adopting different study methods. Physicians described exam preparation as returning to a student/testing mindset, which some welcomed and others experienced negatively or with ambivalence. CONCLUSIONS: What physicians choose to study bounds what they can learn from the MOC exam process and, therefore, also bounds potential improvements to their patient care. Knowing how physicians actually prepare, and how these activities compare with what they do when not preparing for an exam, can inform debates over the value of requiring such exams, as well as conversations about how certification boards and other key stakeholders in physicians' continuing professional development could improve the MOC process.

How hospitalists work to pull healthcare teams together.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to document everyday practices by which hospitalist physicians negotiate barriers to effective teamwork. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Ethnographic observation with a sample of hospitalists chosen to represent a range of hospital and practice types. FINDINGS: Hospitals rely on effective, interprofessional teamwork but typically do not support it. Hospitalist physicians must bridge the internal boundaries within their hospitals to coordinate their patients' care, but they face challenges - scattered patients, fragmented information, uncoordinated teams, and unreliable processes - that can impact the timeliness and safety of care. Hospitalists largely rely on personal presence and memory to deal with these challenges. Some invent low-tech supports for teamwork, but these are typically neither tested nor shared with others. Formal support for teamwork, primarily case management rounds, is applied unevenly and may not be respected by all team members. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The findings are drawn from observation over a limited period of time with a small, purposefully chosen sample of physicians and hospitals. Practical implications - Hospitals must recognize the issues hospitalists and other providers face, evaluate and disseminate supports for teamwork, and make interprofessional teamwork a core feature of hospital design and evaluation. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The authors show the nuances of how hospitalists struggle to practice teamwork in a challenging context, and how the approaches they take (relying on memory and personal presence) do not address, and may actually contribute to, the system-level problems they face.

Assessing interprofessional teamwork: pilot test of a new assessment module for practicing physicians.

INTRODUCTION: Teamwork is a basic component of all health care, and substantial research links the quality of teamwork to safety and quality of care. The TEAM (Teamwork Effectiveness Assessment Module) is a new Web-based teamwork assessment module for practicing hospital physicians. The module combines self-assessment, multisource feedback from members of other professions and specialties with whom the physician exercises teamwork, and a structured review of those data with a peer to develop an improvement plan. METHODS: We conducted a pilot test of this module with hospitalist physicians to evaluate the feasibility and usefulness of the module in practice, focusing on these specific questions: Would physicians in hospitals of different types and sizes be able to use the module; would the providers identified as raters respond to the request for feedback; would the physicians be able to identify one or more "trusted peers" to help analyze the feedback; and how would physicians experience the module process overall? RESULTS: 20 of 25 physicians who initially volunteered for the pilot completed all steps of the TEAM, including identifying interprofessional teammates, soliciting feedback from their team, and identifying a peer to help review data. Module users described the feedback they received as helpful and actionable, and indicated this was information they would not have otherwise received. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that a module combining self-assessment, multisource feedback, and a guided process for interpreting these data can provide help practicing hospital physicians to understand and potentially improve their interprofessional teamwork skills and behaviors.

Professionalism and maintenance of certification: using vignettes describing interpersonal dilemmas to stimulate reflection and learning.

INTRODUCTION: Physicians do not always agree on "rules" governing behavior in professionally challenging situations. Little is known about contextual factors that influence physician approaches in these situations. We explored the individual-, social-, and societal-level factors that physicians consider when responding to 2 common professional dilemmas. We were particularly interested in knowing the extent to which physicians engage in self-reflection as a result of responding to the vignettes. METHODS: A cross-sectional Web-based survey was sent to a random sample of 396 physicians, prompting them to respond to scripted professional dilemmas. RESULTS: A total of 120 physicians responded, yielding a response rate of 32.6%. Physicians responded to these dilemmas in highly variable ways, negotiating a complex array of contextual factors in their decisions. Interacting factors involving individual-level physician (eg, worry, guilt), patient (eg, nature of medical condition or relationship with patient), and social/societal (eg, policy, what peers or colleagues do) were important drivers in physician responses. Qualitative analysis revealed that several interacting themes guide physician approaches to professional dilemmas: patient welfare; types of patients; political, ethical, or legal issues; guiding principles; values; rules; and habits. DISCUSSION: Physicians negotiate a complex set of individual-, social-, and societal-level factors in response to professional dilemmas. This finding has important implications for the promotion and assessment of professional behavior in practicing physicians. Reflecting on scenarios may be an opportunity for physicians to learn about how and why they make decisions in difficult situations.

A new tool to give hospitalists feedback to improve interprofessional teamwork and advance patient care.

Teamwork is a vital skill for health care professionals, but the fragmented systems within which they work frequently do not recognize or support good teamwork. The American Board of Internal Medicine has developed and is testing the Teamwork Effectiveness Assessment Module (TEAM), a tool for physicians to evaluate how they perform as part of an interprofessional patient care team. The assessment provides hospitalist physicians with feedback data drawn from their own work of caring for patients, in a way that is intended to support immediate, concrete change efforts to improve the quality of patient care. Our approach demonstrates the value of looking at teamwork in the real world of health care-that is, as it occurs in the actual contexts in which providers work together to care for patients. The assessment of individual physicians' teamwork competencies may play a role in the larger effort to bring disparate health professions together in a system that supports and rewards a team approach in hope of improving patient care.

The ABIM's clinical supervision practice improvement module and its effect on faculty's supervisory skills.

PURPOSE: Inadequate supervision of medical trainees hampers education and patient care. The authors examine the use of the American Board of Internal Medicine's Clinical Supervision Practice Improvement Module (CS-PIM) to determine whether it facilitated and enhanced faculty's skills in direct observation, providing feedback, identifying errors, and auditing medical records. METHOD: In this descriptive cohort study, module satisfaction was assessed using a five-point Likert scale. Changes in supervisory skills were measured using a retrospective pre-/postmodule self-assessment; deltas were compared by the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: Between March 2009 and October 2010, 644 faculty completed 647 CS-PIMs. Asked how effective the module was for improving their observation and evaluation skills, 91% rated it excellent, very good, or good. Similarly high percentages of the faculty gave those same ratings to the module for facilitating documenting trainee evaluations, documenting feedback to trainees, reflecting on the summary report, developing an improvement plan, and documenting their self-assessment of supervisory skills. Faculty self-reported improved skills in observation, giving feedback, identifying errors, and auditing medical records. CONCLUSION: The CS-PIM facilitated and improved faculty skills in the supervision of trainees and led to self-reported changes in supervisory practices. Future research should evaluate trainees' perceptions and the actual impact on quality of care in the teaching setting.

Ambulatory-based education in internal medicine: current organization and implications for transformation. Results of a national survey of resident continuity clinic directors.

BACKGROUND: Many have called for ambulatory training redesign in internal medicine (IM) residencies to increase primary care career outcomes. Many believe dysfunctional, clinic environments are a key barrier to meaningful ambulatory education, but little is actually known about the educational milieu of continuity clinics nationwide. OBJECTIVE: We wished to describe the infrastructure and educational milieu at resident continuity clinics and assess clinic readiness to meet new IM-RRC requirements. DESIGN: National survey of ACGME accredited IM training programs. PARTICIPANTS: Directors of academic and community-based continuity clinics. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-one out of 365 (62%) of clinic directors representing 49% of training programs responded. Wide variation amongst continuity clinics in size, structure and educational organization exist. Clinics below the 25th percentile of total clinic sessions would not meet RRC-IM requirements for total number of clinic sessions. Only two thirds of clinics provided a longitudinal mentor. Forty-three percent of directors reported their trainees felt stressed in the clinic environment and 25% of clinic directors felt overwhelmed. LIMITATIONS: The survey used self reported data and was not anonymous. A slight predominance of larger clinics and university based clinics responded. Data may not reflect changes to programs made since 2008. CONCLUSIONS: This national survey demonstrates that the continuity clinic experience varies widely across IM programs, with many sites not yet meeting new ACGME requirements. The combination of disadvantaged and ill patients with inadequately resourced clinics, stressed residents, and clinic directors suggests that many sites need substantial reorganization and institutional commitment.New paradigms, encouraged by ACGME requirement changes such as increased separation of inpatient and outpatient duties are needed to improve the continuity clinic experience.

Ambulatory office organization for internal medicine resident medical education.

PURPOSE: Residents will most effectively learn about ambulatory, systems-based practice by working in highly functional ambulatory practices; however, systems experiences in ambulatory training are thought to be highly variable. The authors sought to determine the prevalence of functional-practice characteristics at clinics where residents learn. METHOD: In 2007, the authors conducted a national survey of medical directors of resident continuity clinics using a comprehensive, Web-based instrument that included both a residency clinic assessment and a practice system assessment (PSA). The authors designed the PSA to estimate the Physician Practice Connections (PPC) score, indicating the readiness of a practice to function as a patient-centered medical home (PCMH). RESULTS: Of 356 clinic directors or physician representatives responding to an initial inquiry, 221 completed the survey (62%)--representing 185 programs (49% of accredited programs). The majority of clinics were hospital based (139/220; 63%) or hospital supported (41/220; 19%) and were located in urban settings (151/217; 70%). Estimated payer mix categories included Medicare or managed Medicare (169; 29%), Medicaid or managed Medicaid (161; 34%), and self-pay (156; 25%). The mean estimated PPC score was 53 points (of 100; SD = 17.6). Suburban and rural clinics, Veterans Affairs' clinics, federally qualified health centers, and clinics with a higher proportion of patients with commercial insurance or managed Medicare earned higher scores. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial portion of residency clinics have elements needed for PCMH recognition. However, clinics struggled with connecting these elements with coordination-of-care processes, suggesting areas for improvement to support better functioning of ambulatory training practices.

Aging: adding complexity, requiring skills.

The role of systems in addressing the needs of elderly and chronically ill populations remains a far from universal way of thinking, much less practice, in health care. Re-engineering the current fragmented system to align providers, patients and payment models to facilitate proactive management of conditions associated with advanced age and/or one or more chronic diseases - rather than responding to costly consequences of a health care system optimized for acute care conditions - will be a major challenge for all stakeholders. There are, however, promising success stories that are taking place in the United States today that may provide a model for improvement. The authors define the issues faced by the health care providers and payers that arise when providing care for the elderly and those with chronic conditions - issues that threaten to overwhelm the financial and human health care resources that exist to serve these populations. They define innovative ways of thinking about systems of care, and provide examples of unique systems that have applied theory into practice. These successful leaders may offer lessons in proactively managing complex health conditions, overcoming communication barriers and using technology to complement the necessary human touch that is essential to health care delivery.

Prevalence and functionality of electronic health records in internal medicine continuity clinics.

PURPOSE: Health information technology (HIT), particularly electronic health records (EHRs), will become universal in ambulatory practices, but the current roles and functions that HIT and EHRs play in the ambulatory clinic settings of internal medicine (IM) residents are unknown. METHOD: The authors conducted a Web-based survey from July 2007 to January 2008 to ascertain HIT prevalence and functionality. Respondents were directors of one or more ambulatory clinics where IM residents completed any required outpatient training, as identified by directors of accredited U.S. IM residencies. RESULTS: The authors identified 356 clinic directors from 264 accredited U.S. programs (70%); 221 directors (62%) completed the survey, representing 185 accredited programs (49%). According to responding directors, residents in 121 of 216 clinics (56%) had access to EHRs, residents in 147 of 219 clinics (67%) used some type of electronic data system (EDS) to manage patient information, and residents in 62 clinics (28% of 219 responding) used an EDS to generate lists of patients needing follow-up care. Compared with smaller IM training programs, programs with > or =50 trainees were more likely to have an EDS (67% versus 53%, P = .037), electronic prescription writer (57% versus 42%, P = .026), or EHR (63% versus 45%, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Resident ambulatory clinics seem to have greater adoption of HIT and EHRs than practicing physicians' ambulatory offices. Ample room for improvement exists, however, as electronic systems with suboptimal patient data, limited functionality, and reliance on multiple (paper and electronic) systems all hinder residents' ability to perform important care coordination activities.

Teaching and evaluating point of care learning with an Internet-based clinical-question portfolio.

INTRODUCTION: Diplomates in the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program satisfy the self-evaluation of medical knowledge requirement by completing open-book multiple-choice exams. However, this method remains unlikely to affect practice change and often covers content areas not relevant to diplomates' practices. We developed and evaluated an Internet-based point of care (POC) learning portfolio to serve as an alternative. METHODS: Participants enter information about their clinical questions, including characteristics, information pursuit, application, and practice change. After documenting 20 questions, they reflect upon a summary report and write commitment-to-change statements about their learning strategies. They can link to help screens and medical information resources. We report on the beta test evaluation of the module, completed by 23 internists and 4 internal medicine residents. RESULTS: Participants found the instructions clear and navigated the module without difficulty. The majority preferred the POC portfolio to multiple-choice examinations, citing greater relevance to their practice, guidance in expanding their palette of information resources, opportunity to reflect on their learning needs, and "credit" for self-directed learning related to their patients. Participants entered a total of 543 clinical questions, of which 250 (46%) resulted in a planned practice change. After completing the module, 14 of 27 (52%) participants committed to at least 1 change in their POC learning strategies. DISCUSSION: Internists found the portfolio valuable, preferred it to multiple-choice examinations, often changed their practice after pursuing clinical questions, and productively reflected on their learning strategies. The ABIM will offer this portfolio as an elective option in MOC.

The role of physician engagement on the impact of the hospital-based practice improvement module (PIM).

BACKGROUND: Physicians play an important role in hospital quality improvement (QI) activities. The Hospital-Based Practice Improvement Module (Hospital PIM) is a web-based assessment tool designed by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) to facilitate physician involvement in QI as a part of maintaining certification. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to explore the impact of the Hospital PIM on physicians participating in hospital-based QI. DESIGN: Qualitative design consisting of semistructured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: A purposeful sample of 21 early-completers of the Hospital PIM. MEASUREMENTS: Grounded-theory analysis was used to analyze transcripts of the semistructured telephone interviews. RESULTS: Physician completers of the Hospital PIM describe the impact in a variety of ways, including new learning about QI principles and activities, added value to their practice, and enhanced QI experience. An emerging theme was the mediating role of physician engagement in relation to the overall impact of the Hospital PIM. Four case studies illustrate these findings. Facilitators and barriers that influence the overall experience of the PIM are described. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of completing the Hospital PIM is mediated by the degree of physician engagement with the QI process. Physicians who become engaged with the Hospital PIM and QI process may be more likely to report successful experiences in implementing QI activities in hospital settings than those who do not become engaged.

Measurement in Veterans Affairs Health Services Research: veterans as a special population.

OBJECTIVE: To introduce this supplemental issue on measurement within health services research by using the population of U.S. veterans as an illustrative example of population and system influences on measurement quality. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Measurement quality may be affected by differences in demographic characteristics, illness burden, psychological health, cultural identity, or health care setting. The U.S. veteran population and the VA health system represent a microcosm in which a broad range of measurement issues can be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement is the foundation on which health decisions are made. Poor measurement quality can affect both the quality of health care decisions and decisions about health care policy. The accompanying articles in this issue highlight a subset of measurement issues that have applicability to the broad community of health services research. It is our hope that they stimulate a broad discussion of the measurement challenges posed by conducting "state-of-the-art" health services research.