Use of provider education, intra-operative decision support, and an email-feedback system in improving compliance with sugammadex dosage guideline and reducing drug expenditures.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Due to excessive sugammadex expenditures at our institution, we designed dosing guidelines that utilize adjusted body weight and informatics-based tools aimed at reducing variability in dosing practices. DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed rates of high-dose sugammadex administration in three phases: Pre-intervention - May 2018 to November 2018; First intervention - November 2018 to April 2019; and Second intervention - April 2019 to July 2019. SETTING: Academic medical center in the United States - Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) PATIENTS: N/A INTERVENTIONS: First, anesthesia providers were educated on adjusted body weight-based dosing guidelines. Providers also received intraoperative decision support displaying a patient's actual and adjusted body weight along with rates of high-dose (>200 mg) sugammadex administration for each respective provider. Second, we implemented an email-feedback system to remind providers of the new guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Weekly rate of high-dose sugammadex cases. MAIN RESULTS: During the pre-intervention stage, 1556 (12.3%) cases involved high-dose sugammadex. Comparatively, 550 (4.3%) and 187 (3.1%) high-dose sugammadex cases occurred during the first and second intervention stages, respectively. Segmented regression analysis demonstrated a significant rate change of -3.51% (95% CI: -5.64%, -1.38%) in sugammadex dosing practices after provider education and the implementation of digital improvement initiatives but failed to reveal a significant change after implementation of the email-feedback system. Overall, our interventions were associated with $2563.05 in estimated weekly savings of sugammadex expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Provider education and digital quality improvement was associated with reduced rates of high-dose sugammadex administration, generating cost savings at a large academic medical institution.

ACGME Case Log Reminder Does Not Improve Resident Accuracy in Logging Cases.

To assess competency of residents prior to graduation, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) maintains a case log system, where residents self-report cases they perform. This mechanism results in underreporting of resident involvement in patient care. To determine if an intraoperative case log reminder would increase the frequency of ACGME case logging amongst anesthesiology residents. An intraoperative ACGME case log reminder was implemented on March 13, 2019. The authors collected data for all 53 PGY2-4 anesthesiology residents at the authors' institution from July 14, 2018 to July 16, 2019 from the electronic medical record and ACGME system to calculate the proportion of cases logged and the "lag time" between case occurrence and logging. Data was analyzed for all residents, classes, and individuals. A total of 16,342 anesthetics were performed, and a total of 11,713 cases were logged. The reminder did not improve overall logging rates. Case-logging rates amongst PGY2 residents remained unchanged and declined for PGY3 and PGY4 residents. The lag time between case occurrence and logging increased. An automatic reminder did not improve logging frequency. This may be because residents are unable to log cases intraoperatively in many instances, or they may not feel as though they have participated enough in a case to log it. Additionally, senior residents may log cases less frequently once they have met required case minimums. An automatic case-logging system that transmits resident information directly to the ACGME may be the best way to increase logging accuracy.

U.S. medical school admissions and enrollment practices: status of LGBTQ inclusivity.

CONTEXT: The failure to collect information on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) identity in healthcare and medical education is a part of a systemic problem that limits academic medical institutions' ability to address LGBTQ health disparities. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether accurate sexual and gender minority (SGM) demographic data is being consistently collected for all US medical schools during admissions and enrollment, and whether differences exist between collection practices at osteopathic and allopathic schools. METHODS: Secure, confidential electronic were sent via email in July 2019 to 180 osteopathic (n=42) and allopathic (n=138) medical schools identified through the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine Student Guide to Osteopathic Medical Colleges database and the American Association of Medical Colleges Medical School Admissions Requirements database. The nine question survey remained open through October 2019 and queried for; (1) the ability of students to self report SGM status during admissions and enrollment; and (2) availability of SGM specific resources and support services for students. Chi square analysis and the test for equality of proportions were performed. RESULTS: Seventy five of 180 (41.7%) programs responded to the survey; 74 provided at least partial data. Of the 75 respondent schools, 55 (73.3%) allowed applicants to self report a gender identity other than male or female, with 49 (87.5%) of those being allopathic schools compared with 6 (31.6%) osteopathic schools. Similarly, 15 (20.0%) allowed applicants to report sexual orientation, with 14 (25.5%) of those being allopathic schools compared with one (5.3%) osteopathic school. Fifty four of 74 (73.0%) programs allowed matriculants to self report a gender identity other than male or female; 11 of 74 (14.7%) allowed matriculants to report sexual orientation. CONCLUSIONS: Demographics collection practices among American medical education programs that responded to our survey indicated that they undervalued sexual orientation and gender identity, with osteopathic programs being less likely than allopathic programs to report inclusive best practices in several areas. American medical education programs, and their supervising bodies, must update their practices with respect to the collection of sexual orientation and gender identity demographics as part of a holistic effort to address SGM health disparities.

A Call for LGBTQ Content in Graduate Medical Education Program Requirements.

A well-developed body of literature demonstrates that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals experience poorer health outcomes and report worse health care experiences than straight/cisgender individuals. Many reforms since 2010 have addressed the LGBTQ-related education of future health care professionals at the undergraduate medical education (UME) level; however, reforms at the graduate medical education (GME) level are lagging, and new literature suggests that didactic education at the UME level is not enough to prepare future physicians to properly and compassionately care for LGBTQ patients. Recently, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented a major revision of its Common Program Requirements that requires residents to demonstrate, as a competence, respect and responsiveness to diverse populations. Given these revisions and the ongoing failure of many GME training programs to adequately prepare future physicians to care for LGBTQ patients, the authors argue that now is the time for the ACGME to develop and implement LGBTQ health-related residency requirements. In addition, the authors outline a path by which the academic medical community may develop and implement these requirements.