Interprofessional population health advocacy: Developing and implementing a panel management curriculum in five Veterans Administration primary care practices.

Health care systems expect primary care clinicians to manage panels of patients and improve population health, yet few have been trained to do so. An interprofessional panel management (PM) curriculum is one possible strategy to address this training gap and supply future primary care practices with clinicians and teams prepared to work together to improve the health of individual patients and populations. This paper describes a Veterans Administration (VA) sponsored multi-site interprofessional PM curriculum development effort. Five VA Centers of Excellence in Primary Care Education collaborated to identify a common set of interprofessionally relevant desired learning outcomes (DLOs) for the PM and to develop assessment instruments for monitoring trainees' PM learning. Authors cataloged teaching and learning activities across sites. Results from pilot testing were systematically discussed leading to iterative revisions of curricular elements. Authors completed a retrospective self-assessment of curriculum implementation for the academic year 2015-16 using a 5-point scale: contemplation (score = 0), pilot (1), action (2), maintenance (3), and embedded (4). Implementation scores were analyzed using descriptive statistics. DLOs were organized into five categories (individual patients, populations, guidelines/measures, teamwork, and improvement) along with a developmental continuum and mapped to program competencies. Instruction and implementation varied across sites based on resources and priorities. Between 2015 and 2016, 159 trainees (internal medicine residents, nurse practitioner students and residents, pharmacy residents, and psychology post-doctoral fellows) participated in the PM curriculum. Curriculum implementation scores for guidelines/measures and improvement DLOs were similar for all trainees; scores for individual patients, populations, and teamwork DLOs were more advanced for nurse practitioner and physician trainees. In conclusion, collaboratively identified DLOs for PM guided development of assessment instruments and instructional approaches for panel management activities in interprofessional teams. This PM curriculum and associated tools provide resources for educators in other settings.

Identifying and Prioritizing Workplace Climate Predictors of Burnout Among VHA Primary Care Physicians.

OBJECTIVE: Burnout, or job-related stress, affects more than half of all US physicians, with primary care physicians (PCPs) experiencing some of the highest rates in medicine. Our study analyzes national survey data to identify and prioritize workplace climate predictors of burnout among PCPs within a large integrated health system. DESIGN: Observational study of annual survey data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) All Employee Survey (AES) for 2013-2017. AES response rate ranged from 56 to 60% during the study period. Independent and dependent variables were measured from separate random samples. In total, 8,456 individual-level responses among PCPs at 110 VHA practice sites were aggregated at the facility level by reporting year. We used the semi-automated LASSO procedure to identify workplace climate measures that were more influential in predicting burnout and assessed relative importance using the Shapely value decomposition. PARTICIPANTS: VHA employees that self-identify as PCPs. MAIN MEASURES: Dependent variables included two dichotomous measures of burnout: emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Independent measures included 30 survey measures related to dimensions of workplace climate (e.g., workload, leadership, satisfaction). RESULTS: We identified seven influential workplace climate predictors of emotional exhaustion and nine predictors of depersonalization. With few exceptions, higher agreement/satisfaction scores for predictors were associated with a lower likelihood of burnout. The majority of explained variation in emotional exhaustion was attributable to perceptions of workload (32.6%), organization satisfaction (28.2%), and organization support (19.4%). The majority of explained variation in depersonalization was attributable to workload (25.3%), organization satisfaction (22.9%), and connection to VHA mission (20.7%). CONCLUSION: Identifying the relative importance of workplace climate is important for the allocation of health organization resources to mitigate and prevent burnout within the PCP workplace. In a context of limited resources, efforts to reduce perceived workload and improve organization satisfaction may represent the biggest leverage points for health organizations to address physician burnout.

Interprofessional Academic Patient Aligned Care Team Panel Management Model.

The panel management model brings together trainees, faculty, and clinic staff to proactively provide team-based care to high-risk patients with unmet chronic care needs.

Impact of clinical training on recruiting graduating health professionals.

OBJECTIVES: Recruiting professional staff is an important business reason for hospitals allowing health trainees to engage in supervised patient care. Whereas prior studies have focused on educational institutions, this study focuses on teaching hospitals and whether trainees' clinical experiences affect their willingness to work (ie, recruitability) for the type of healthcare center where they trained. STUDY DESIGN: A pre-post, observational study based on Learners' Perceptions Survey data in which respondents served as their own controls. METHODS: Convenience sample of 15,207 physician, 11,844 nursing, and 13,012 associated health trainees who rotated through 1 of 169 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2017. Generalized estimating equations computed how clinical, learning, working, and cultural experiences influenced pre-post differences in willingness to consider VA for future employment. RESULTS: VA recruitability increased dramatically from 55% pretraining to 75% post training (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% CI, 2.0-2.1; P <.001) in all 3 cohorts: physician (from 39% to 59%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.5-1.6; P <.001), nursing (from 61% to 84%; OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 2.4-2.6; P <.001), and associated health trainees (from 68% to 87%; OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.6-2.9; P <.001). For all trainees, changes in recruitability (P <.001) were associated with how trainees rated their clinical learning environment, personal experiences, and culture of psychological safety. Satisfaction ratings with faculty and preceptors (P <.001) were associated with positive changes in recruitability among nursing and associated health students but not physician residents, whereas nursing students who gave higher ratings for interprofessional team culture became less recruitable. CONCLUSIONS: Academic medical centers can attract their health trainees for future employment if they provide positive clinical, working, learning, and cultural experiences.

Implementation of a novel population panel management curriculum among interprofessional health care trainees.

BACKGROUND: Gaps in chronic disease management have led to calls for novel methods of interprofessional, team-based care. Population panel management (PPM), the process of continuous quality improvement across groups of patients, is rarely included in health professions training for physicians, nurses, or pharmacists. The feasibility and acceptance of such training across different healthcare professions is unknown. We developed and implemented a novel, interprofessional PPM curriculum targeted to diverse health professions trainees. METHODS: The curriculum was implemented annually among internal medicine residents, nurse practitioner students and residents, and pharmacy residents co-located in a large, academic primary care site. Small groups of interprofessional trainees participated in supervised quarterly seminars focusing on chronic disease management (e.g., diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) or processes of care (e.g., emergency department utilization for nonacute conditions or chronic opioid management). Following brief didactic presentations, trainees self-assessed their clinic performance using patient-level chart review, presented individual cases to interprofessional staff and faculty, and implemented subsequent feedback with their clinic team. We report data from 2011 to 2015. Program evaluation included post-session participant surveys regarding attitudes, knowledge and confidence towards PPM, ability to identify patients for referral to interprofessional team members, and major learning points from the session. Directed content analysis was performed on an open-ended survey question. RESULTS: Trainees (n = 168) completed 122 evaluation assessments. Trainees overwhelmingly reported increased confidence in using PPM and increased knowledge about managing their patient panel. Trainees reported improved ability to identify patients who would benefit from multidisciplinary care or referral to another team member. Directed content analysis revealed that trainees viewed team members as important system resources (n = 82). CONCLUSIONS: Structured interprofessional training in PPM is both feasible and acceptable to trainees across multiple professions. Curriculum participants reported improved panel management skills, increased confidence in using PPM, and increased confidence in identifying candidates for interprofessional care. The curriculum could be readily exported to other programs and contexts.

Has Interprofessional Education Changed Learning Preferences? A National Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how changes in curriculum, accreditation standards, and certification and licensure competencies impacted how medical students and physician residents value interprofessional team and patient-centered care. PRIMARY DATA SOURCE: The Department of Veterans Affairs Learners' Perceptions Survey (2003-2013). The nationally administered survey asked a representative sample of 56,569 U.S. medical students and physician residents, with a comparison group of 78,038 nonphysician trainees, to rate satisfaction with 28 elements, in two overall domains, describing their clinical learning experiences at VA medical centers. STUDY DESIGN: Value preferences were scored as independent adjusted associations between an element (interprofessional team, patient-centered preceptor) and the respective overall domain (clinical learning environment, faculty, and preceptors) relative to a referent element (quality of clinical care, quality of preceptor). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Physician trainees valued interprofessional (14 percent vs. 37 percent, p < .001) and patient-centered learning (21 percent vs. 36 percent, p < .001) less than their nonphysician counterparts. Physician preferences for interprofessional learning showed modest increases over time (2.5 percent/year, p < .001), driven mostly by internal medicine and surgery residents. Preferences did not increase with trainees' academic progress. CONCLUSIONS: Despite changes in medical education, physician trainees continue to lag behind their nonphysician counterparts in valuing experience with interprofessional team and patient-centered care.

Reflections of the Veterans Administration Puget Sound Health Care System Regional Nurse Practitioner Residency Forum.

PROBLEM: There is a proliferation of advanced practice residency programs. However, there is no uniform model of developing and evaluating program success. METHODS: An information forum was convened by Veterans Health Administration Puget Sound Health Care System's Center for Primary Care Education on September 17, 2013, in Seattle, Washington, to explore critical aspects of residency models. The three objectives of this forum were to develop a shared understanding of key elements needed to support nurse practitioner residencies; define the unique needs of nurse practitioner trainees who are interested in applying for a residency; and examine the viability of designing a replicable nurse practitioner residency model benchmarking stakeholder best practices. FINDINGS: This article describes the organization of the forum and summarizes the presentations during the program. The companion article explores key recommendations from the forum related to future development of residency "toolkits" to aid in future evaluation and accreditation. CONCLUSION: As nurse practitioner residencies continue to develop and evolve, more is needed in the area of structure and alignment.

Advancing educational continuity in primary care residencies: an opportunity for patient-centered medical homes.

Continuity of care is a core value of patients and primary care physicians, yet in graduate medical education (GME), creating effective clinical teaching environments that emphasize continuity poses challenges. In this Perspective, the authors review three dimensions of continuity for patient care-informational, longitudinal, and interpersonal-and propose analogous dimensions describing continuity for learning that address both residents learning from patient care and supervisors and interprofessional team members supporting residents' competency development. The authors review primary care GME reform efforts through the lens of continuity, including the growing body of evidence that highlights the importance of longitudinal continuity between learners and supervisors for making competency judgments. The authors consider the challenges that primary care residency programs face in the wake of practice transformation to patient-centered medical home models and make recommendations to maximize the opportunity that these practice models provide. First, educators, researchers, and policy makers must be more precise with terms describing various dimensions of continuity. Second, research should prioritize developing assessments that enable the study of the impact of interpersonal continuity on clinical outcomes for patients and learning outcomes for residents. Third, residency programs should establish program structures that provide informational and longitudinal continuity to enable the development of interpersonal continuity for care and learning. Fourth, these educational models and continuity assessments should extend to the level of the interprofessional team. Fifth, policy leaders should develop a meaningful recognition process that rewards academic practices for training the primary care workforce.

Recommendations for nurse practitioner residency programs.

The purpose of this study was to identify and prioritize critical aspects needed in the design and execution of new nurse practitioner (NP) residency programs. Subjects answered a series of questions on formulating residency programs and on key outcomes and cost measures related to their sustainability. These results serve as potential guideposts for future work in NP residency standardization and sustainability development.

The learners' perceptions survey-primary care: assessing resident perceptions of internal medicine continuity clinics and patient-centered care.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) implemented a national patient-centered care initiative that organized primary care into interdisciplinary teams of health care professionals to provide patient-centered, continuous, and coordinated care. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the discriminate validity of the Learners' Perceptions Survey-Primary Care (LPS-PC), a tool designed to measure residents' perceptions about their primary and patient-centered care experiences. METHODS: Between October 2010 and June 2011, the LPS-PC was administered to Loma Linda University Medical Center internal medicine residents assigned to continuity clinics at the VA Loma Linda Healthcare System (VALLHCS), a university setting, or the county hospital. Adjusted differences in satisfaction ratings across settings and over domains (patient- and family-centered care, faculty and preceptors, learning, clinical, work and physical environments, and personal experience) were computed using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: Our response rate was 86% (77 of 90). Residents were more satisfied with patient- and family-centered care at the VALLHCS than at either the university or county (P < .001). However, faculty and preceptors (odds ratio [OR]  =  1.53), physical (OR  =  1.29), and learning (OR  =  1.28) environments had more impact on overall resident satisfaction than patient- and family-centered care (OR  =  1.08). CONCLUSIONS: The LPS-PC demonstrated discriminate validity to assess residents' perceptions of their patient-centered clinical training experience across outpatient primary care settings at an internal medicine residency program. The largest difference in scores was the patient- and family-centered care domain, in which residents rated the VALLHCS much higher than the university or county sites.

Training satisfaction for subspecialty fellows in internal medicine: findings from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Learners' Perceptions Survey.

BACKGROUND: Learner satisfaction assessment is critical in the design and improvement of training programs. However, little is known about what influences satisfaction and whether trainee specialty is correlated. A national comparison of satisfaction among internal medicine subspecialty fellows in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides a unique opportunity to examine educational factors associated with learner satisfaction. We compared satisfaction across internal medicine fellows by subspecialty and compared factors associated with satisfaction between procedural versus non-procedural subspecialty fellows, using data from the Learners' Perceptions Survey (LPS), a validated survey tool. METHODS: We surveyed 2,221 internal medicine subspecialty fellows rotating through VA between 2001 and 2008. Learners rated their overall training satisfaction on a 100-point scale, and on a five-point Likert scale ranked satisfaction with items within six educational domains: learning, clinical, working and physical environments; personal experience; and clinical faculty/preceptor. RESULTS: Procedural and non-procedural fellows reported similar overall satisfaction scores (81.2 and 81.6). Non-procedural fellows reported higher satisfaction with 79 of 81 items within the 6 domains and with the domain of physical environment (4.06 vs. 3.85, p <0.001). Satisfaction with clinical faculty/preceptor and personal experience had the strongest impact on overall satisfaction for both. Procedural fellows reported lower satisfaction with physical environment. CONCLUSIONS: Internal medicine fellows are highly satisfied with their VA training. Nonprocedural fellows reported higher satisfaction with most items. For both procedural and non-procedural fellows, clinical faculty/preceptor and personal experience have the strongest impact on overall satisfaction.

Measuring the intensity of resident supervision in the department of veterans affairs: the resident supervision index.

PURPOSE: To develop a survey instrument designed to quantify supervision by attending physicians in nonprocedural care and to assess the instrument's feasibility and reliability. METHOD: In 2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Academic Affiliations convened an expert panel to adopt a working definition of attending supervision in nonprocedural patient care and to construct a survey to quantify it. Feasibility was field-tested on residents and their supervising attending physicians at primary care internal medicine clinics at the VA Loma Linda Healthcare System in their encounters with randomly selected outpatients diagnosed with either major depressive disorder or diabetes. The authors assessed both interrater concurrent reliability and test-retest reliability. RESULTS: The expert panel adopted the VA's definition of resident supervision and developed the Resident Supervision Index (RSI) to measure supervision in terms of residents' case understanding, attending physicians' contributions to patient care through feedback to the resident, and attending physicians' time (minutes). The RSI was field-tested on 60 residents and 37 attending physicians for 148 supervision episodes from 143 patient encounters. Consent rates were 94% for residents and 97% for attending physicians; test-retest reliability intraclass correlations (ICCs) were 0.93 and 0.88, respectively. Concurrent reliability between residents' and attending physicians' reported time was an ICC of 0.69. CONCLUSIONS: The RSI is a feasible and reliable measure of resident supervision that is intended for research studies in graduate medical education focusing on education outcomes, as well as studies assessing quality of care, patient health outcomes, care costs, and clinical workload.

Defining the roles of advisors and mentors in postgraduate medical education: faculty perceptions, roles, responsibilities, and resource needs.

BACKGROUND: Residency program directors rely on an informal network of faculty mentors to provide guidance for residents. Faced with increasingly sophisticated competency-based evaluation systems and scrutiny of patient safety and resident well-being in today's environment, residency programs need more structured mechanisms for mentoring. OBJECTIVE: To clarify the role of resident advisors and mentors so that residents receive the right combination of direction and oversight to ensure their successful transition to the next phase of their careers. METHODS: The Duke Internal Medicine Residency Program undertook a formal assessment of the roles, responsibilities, and resource needs of its key faculty through a focus group made up of key faculty. A follow-up focus group of residents and chief residents was held to validate the results of the faculty group assessment. RESULTS: The distinction between advising and mentoring was our important discovery and is supported by literature that identifies that mentors and advisors differ in multiple ways. A mentor is often selected to match resources and expertise with a resident's needs or professional interests. An advisor is assigned with a role to counsel and guide the resident through the residency processes, procedures, and key learning milestones. CONCLUSION: The difference between the role of advisor and that of mentor is of critical importance and allowed for the evolution of faculty participants' role as resident advisors, including the formulation of expectations for advisors, and the creation of an advisor toolkit. Our modifiable toolkit can enhance the advising process for residents in many disciplines. We saw an improvement in resident satisfaction from 2006 to 2009.

Measuring progressive independence with the resident supervision index: theoretical approach.

BACKGROUND: Graduate medical education is based on an on-the-job training model in which residents provide clinical care under supervision. The traditional method is to offer residents graduated levels of responsibility that will prepare them for independent practice. However, if progressive independence from supervision exceeds residents' progressive professional development, patient outcomes may be at risk. Leaders in graduate medical education have called for "optimal" supervision, yet few studies have conceptually defined what optimal supervision means and whether optimal care is theoretically compatible with progressive independence, nor have they developed a test for progressive independence. OBJECTIVE: This research develops theory and analytic models as part of the Resident Supervision Index to quantify the intensity of supervision. METHODS: We introduce an explicit set of assumptions for an ideal patient-centered theory of optimal supervision of resident-provided care. A critical assumption is that informed attending staff will use available resources to optimize patient outcomes first and foremost, with residents gaining clinical competencies by contributing to optimal care. Next, we derive mathematically the consequences of these assumptions as theoretical results. RESULTS: Under optimal supervision, (1) patient outcome is expected to be no worse than if residents were not involved, (2) supervisors will avoid undersupervising residents (when patients are at increased risk for poor outcomes) or oversupervising residents (when residents miss clinical opportunities to practice care), (3) optimal patient outcomes will be compatible with progressive independence, (4) progressive development can be inferred from progressive independence whenever residents contribute to patient care, and (5) analytic models that test for progressive independence will emphasize adjusting the association between length of graduate medical education training and supervision for case complexity and clinic workload, but not patient health outcomes. CONCLUSION: An explicit theoretical framework is critical to measure scientifically progressive independence from supervision using graduate medical education data.

Measuring progressive independence with the resident supervision index: empirical approach.

BACKGROUND: A Resident Supervision Index (RSI) developed by our research team quantifies the intensity of resident supervision in graduate medical education, with the goal of testing for progressive independence. The 4-part RSI method includes a survey instrument for staff and residents (RSI Inventory), a strategy to score survey responses, a theoretical framework (patient centered optimal supervision), and a statistical model that accounts for the presence or absence of supervision and the intensity of patient care. METHODS: The RSI Inventory data came from 140 outpatient encounters involving 57 residents and 37 attending physicians during a 3-month period at a Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic. Responses are scored to quantitatively measure the intensity of resident supervision across 10 levels of patient services (staff is absent, is present, participated, or provided care with or without a resident), case discussion (resident-staff interaction), and oversight (staff reviewed case, reviewed medical chart, consulted with staff, or assessed patient). Scores are analyzed by level and for patient care using a 2-part model (supervision initiated [yes or no] versus intensity once supervision was initiated). RESULTS: All resident encounters had patient care supervision, resident oversight, or both. Consistent with the progressive independence hypothesis, residents were 1.72 (P  =  .019) times more likely to be fully responsible for patient care with each additional postgraduate year. Decreasing case complexity, increasing clinic workload, and advanced nonmedical degrees among attending staff were negatively associated with supervision intensity, although associations varied by supervision level. CONCLUSIONS: These data are consistent with the progressive independence hypothesis in graduate medical education and offer empirical support for the 4-part RSI method to quantify the intensity of resident supervision for research, program evaluation, and resident assessment purposes. Before informing policy, however, more scientific research in actual teaching settings is needed to better understand the relationships among patient outcomes, clinic workload, case complexity, and graduate medical education experience in resident supervision and professional development.

'So you want to be a clinician-educator...': designing a clinician-educator curriculum for internal medicine residents.

BACKGROUND: Despite a growing demand for skilled teachers and administrators in graduate medical education, clinician-educator tracks for residents are rare and though some institutions offer 'resident-as-teacher' programs to assist residents in developing teaching skills, the need exists to expand training opportunities in this area. METHODS: The authors conducted a workshop at a national meeting to develop a description of essential components of a training pathway for internal medicine residents. Through open discussion and small group work, participants defined the various roles of clinician-educators and described goals, training opportunities, assessment and resource needs for such a program. RESULTS: Workshop participants posited that the clinician-educator has several roles to fulfill beyond that of clinician, including those of teacher, curriculum developer, administrator and scholar. A pathway for residents aspiring to become clinician educators must offer structured training in each of these four areas to empower residents to effectively practice clinical education. In addition, the creation of such a track requires securing time and resources to support resident learning experiences and formal faculty development programs to support institutional mentors and leaders. CONCLUSION: This article provides a framework by which leaders in medical education can begin to prepare current trainees interested in careers as clinician-educators.