Faculty Development in Academic Hospital Medicine: a Scoping Review.

This scoping review sought to identify and describe the state of academic faculty development programs in hospital medicine and other specialties. We reviewed faculty development content, structure, metrics of success including facilitators, barriers, and sustainability to create a framework and inform hospital medicine leadership and faculty development initiatives. We completed a systematic search of peer-reviewed literature and searched Ovid MEDLINE ALL (1946 to June 17, 2021) and Embase (via Elsevier, 1947 to June 17, 2021). Twenty-two studies were included in the final review, with wide heterogeneity in program design, program description, outcomes, and study design. Program design included a combination of didactics, workshops, and community or networking events; half of the studies included mentorship or coaching for faculty. Thirteen studies included program description and institutional experience without reported outcomes while eight studies included quantitative analysis and mixed methods results. Barriers to program success included limited time and support for faculty attendance, conflicting clinical commitments, and lack of mentor availability. Facilitators included allotted funding and time for faculty participation, formal mentoring and coaching opportunities, and a structured curriculum with focused skill development supporting faculty priorities. We identified heterogeneous historical studies addressing faculty development across highly variable program design, intervention, faculty targeted, and outcomes assessed. Common themes emerged, including the need for program structure and support, aligning areas of skill development with faculty values, and longitudinal mentoring/coaching. Programs require dedicated program leadership, support for faculty time and participation, curricula focused on skills development, and mentoring and sponsorship.

Promoting Responsible Electronic Documentation: Validity Evidence for a Checklist to Assess Progress Notes in the Electronic Health Record.

Construct: We aimed to develop an instrument to measure the quality of inpatient electronic health record- (EHR-) generated progress notes without requiring raters to review the detailed chart or know the patient. BACKGROUND: Notes written in EHRs have generated criticism for being unnecessarily long and redundant, perpetuating inaccuracy and obscuring providers' clinical reasoning. Available assessment tools either focus on outpatient progress notes or require chart review by raters to develop familiarity with the patient. APPROACH: We used medical literature, local expert review, and attending focus groups to develop and refine an instrument to evaluate inpatient progress notes. We measured interrater reliability and scored the selected-response elements of the checklist for a sample of 100 progress notes written by PGY-1 trainees on the general medicine service. RESULTS: We developed an instrument with 18 selected-response items and four open-ended items to measure the quality of inpatient progress notes written in the EHR. The mean Cohen's kappa coefficient demonstrated good agreement at .67. The mean note score was 66.9% of maximum possible points (SD = 10.6, range = 34.4%-93.3%). CONCLUSIONS: We present validity evidence in the domains of content, internal structure, and response process for a new checklist for rating inpatient progress notes. The scored checklist can be completed in approximately 7 minutes by a rater who is not familiar with the patient and can be done without extensive chart review. We further demonstrate that trainee notes show substantial room for improvement.

Survey of Provider Transfusion Practices for Oncology Patients in an Academic Medical Center.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized oncology patients receive care from a variety of professionals, each of whom plays a role in decisions related to blood transfusions. We sought to examine differences in transfusion practices based on professional role, years of experience, and patient clinical scenario. METHODS: We surveyed general medicine residents, hospitalists, and oncologists caring for inpatients at a large academic medical center between August 2013 and June 2014. Respondents reported transfusion practices in three different patient scenarios: a generally healthy patient, a patient with solid tumor malignancy, and a patient with hematologic malignancy. We also assessed rationale for transfusion practices. Bivariate comparisons of respondent characteristics and transfusion threshold were conducted using the Fisher exact test. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess the relative relations among professional role, years in practice, clinical scenario, and transfusion threshold <7 g/dL. RESULTS: Of 158 physicians surveyed, 97 responded (61.4%). In bivariate analyses, fewer oncologists than residents or hospitalists used a threshold of <7 g/dL, but the result was significant for only one of three scenarios. The multivariate odds of transfusing at a threshold <7 g/dL were significantly higher among nononcologists (odds ratio [OR] 2.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-4.28). Residents and practitioners in practice for <4 years also were more likely to use a threshold <7 g/dL (OR 1.82, 95% CI 0.99-3.33). Providers were less likely to use a restrictive threshold when an underlying malignancy was present (solid tumor OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.64; hematologic malignancy OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Transfusion thresholds differed based on professional role, years in practice, and patient scenario. Further research is needed to determine the optimal transfusion threshold for oncology patients.

A matter of priorities? Exploring the persistent gender pay gap in hospital medicine.

BACKGROUND: Gender earnings disparities among physicians exist even after considering differences in specialty, part-time status, and practice type. Little is known about the role of job satisfaction priorities on earnings differences. OBJECTIVE: To examine gender differences in work characteristics and job satisfaction priorities, and their relationship with gender earnings disparities among hospitalists. DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional survey study. PARTICIPANTS: US hospitalists in 2010. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported income, work characteristics, and priorities among job satisfaction domains. RESULTS: On average, women compared to men hospitalists were younger, less likely to be leaders, worked fewer full-time equivalents, worked more nights, reported fewer daily billable encounters, more were pediatricians, worked in university settings, worked in the Western United States, and were divorced. More hospitalists of both genders prioritized optimal workload among the satisfaction domains. However, substantial pay ranked second in prevalence by men and fourth by women. Women hospitalists earned $14,581 less than their male peers in an analysis adjusting for these differences. CONCLUSIONS: The gender earnings gap persists among hospitalists. A portion of the disparity is explained by the fewer women hospitalists compared to men who prioritize pay.

Assessing Interprofessional Teamwork in Inpatient Medical Oncology Units.

PURPOSE: Teamwork is important to providing safe and effective care for hospitalized patients with cancer; however, few studies have evaluated teamwork in this setting. METHODS: We surveyed all nurses, residents, hospitalists, and oncology physicians in oncology units at a large urban teaching hospital from September to November 2012. Respondents rated teamwork using a validated instrument (Safety Attitudes Questionnaire; scale, 0 to 100) and rated the quality of collaboration they had experienced with other professionals using a 5-point ordinal response scale (1, very low quality; 5, very high quality). Respondents also rated potential barriers to collaboration using a 4-point ordinal response scale (1, not at all a barrier; 4, major barrier). We compared ratings by professionals using analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Overall, 129 (67%) of 193 eligible participants completed the survey. Teamwork scores differed across professional types, with nurses providing the lowest ratings (69.7) and residents providing the highest (81.9; ANOVA P = .01). Ratings of collaboration with nurses were high across all types of professionals. Ratings of collaboration with physicians varied significantly by professional type (P ≤ .02), with nurses giving lower ratings of collaboration with all physician types. Similarly, perceived barriers to collaboration differed by professional type, with nurses perceiving the biggest barrier to be negative attitudes regarding the importance of communication. Oncologists did not perceive any of the listed options as major barriers to collaboration. CONCLUSION: In inpatient oncology units, discrepancies exist between nurses' and physicians' ratings of teamwork and collaboration. Oncologists seem to be unaware that teamwork is suboptimal in this setting.