A Pragmatic Approach to Identifying and Profiling Primary Care Clinicians and Primary Care Practices in the USA.

BACKGROUND: There are no consistent data on US primary care clinicians and primary care practices owing to the lack of standard methods to identify them, hampering efforts in primary care improvement. METHODS: We develop a pragmatic framework that identifies primary care clinicians and practices in the context of the US healthcare system, and applied the framework to the IQVIA OneKey Healthcare Professional database to identify and profile primary care clinicians and practices in the USA. RESULTS: Our framework prescribes sequential steps to identify primary care clinicians by cross-examining clinician specialties and organizational affiliations, and then identify primary care practices based on organization types and presence of primary care clinicians. Applying this framework to the 2021 IQVIA data, we identified 365,751 physicians with a primary specialty in primary care, and after excluding those who further specialized (24%), served as hospitalists (5%), or worked in non-primary care settings (41%), we determined that 179,369 (49%) of them were actually practicing primary care. We identified 287,506 nurse practitioners and 134,083 physician assistants and determined that 88,574 (31%) and 29,781 (22%), respectively, were delivering primary care. We identified 94,489 primary care practices, and found that 45% of them were with one primary care physician, 15% had two physicians, 12% employed nurse practitioners or physician assistants only, and 19% employed both primary care physicians and specialists. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach offers a pragmatic and consistent alternative to the diverse methods currently used to identify and profile primary care workforce and organizations in the USA.

Updating the Military Unique Curriculum for a Ready Medical Force.

INTRODUCTION: Previous conflicts have demonstrated the impact of physician readiness on early battlefield mortality rates. To prepare for the lethal nature of today's threat environment and the rapid speed with which conflict develops, our medical force needs to sustain a high level of readiness in order to be ready to "fight tonight." Previous approaches that have relied on on-the-job training, just-in-time predeployment training, or follow-on courses after residency are unlikely to satisfy these readiness requirements. Sustaining the successes in battlefield care achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan requires the introduction of effective combat casualty care earlier and more often in physician training. This needs assessment seeks to better understand the requirements, challenges, and opportunities to include the Military Unique Curriculum (MUC) during graduate medical education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This needs assessment used a multifaceted methodology. First, a literature review was performed to assess how Military Unique Curricula have evolved since their initial conception in 1988. Next, to determine their current state, a needs-based assessment survey was designed for trainees and program directors (PDs), each consisting of 18 questions with a mixture of multiple choice, ranking, Likert scale, and free-text questions. Cognitive interviewing and expert review were employed to refine the survey before distribution. The Housestaff Survey was administered using an online format and deployed to Internal Medicine trainees at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC). The Program Director Survey was sent to all Army and Navy Internal Medicine Program Directors. This project was deemed to not meet the definition of research in accordance with 32 Code of Federal Regulation 219.102 and Department of Defense Instruction 3216.02 and was therefore registered with the WRNMMC Quality Management Division. RESULTS: Out of 64 Walter Reed Internal Medicine trainees who received the survey, 32 responses were received. Seven of nine PDs completed their survey. Only 12.5% of trainees felt significantly confident that they would be adequately prepared for a combat deployment upon graduation from residency with the current curriculum. Similarly, only 14.29% of PDs felt that no additional training was needed. A majority of trainees were not satisfied with the amount of training being received on any MUC topic. When incorporating additional training on MUC topics, respondents largely agreed that simulation and small group exercises were the most effective modalities to employ, with greater than 50% of both trainees and PDs rating these as most or second most preferred among seven options. Additionally, there was a consensus that training should be integrated into the existing curriculum/rotations as much as possible. CONCLUSIONS: Current Military Unique Curricula do not meet the expected requirements of future battlefields. Several solutions to incorporate more robust military unique training without creating any significant additional time burdens for trainees do exist. Despite the limitation of these results being limited to a single institution, this needs assessment provides a starting point for improvement to help ensure that we limit the impact of any "peacetime effect."

Outcomes Associated With Intensive Care and Organ Support Among Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate accounting of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) critical care outcomes has important implications for health care delivery. RESEARCH QUESTION: We aimed to determine critical care and organ support outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) COVID-19 patients and whether they varied depending on the completeness of study follow-up or admission time period. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of reports describing ICU, mechanical ventilation (MV), renal replacement therapy (RRT), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) mortality. A search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases.We included English language observational studies of COVID-19 patients, reporting ICU admission, MV, and ICU case fatality, published from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020. We excluded reports of less than 5 ICU patients and pediatric populations. Study characteristics, patient demographics, and outcomes were extracted from each article. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed based on the admission end date and the completeness of data. RESULTS: Of 6,778 generated articles, 145 were retained for inclusion (n = 60,357 patients). Case fatality rates across all studies were 34.0% (95% CI = 30.7%, 37.5%, P < 0.001) for ICU deaths, 47.9% (95% CI = 41.6%, 54.2%, P < 0.001) for MV deaths, 58.7% (95% CI = 50.0%, 67.2%, P < 0.001) for RRT deaths, and 43.3% (95% CI = 31.4%, 55.4%, P < 0.001) for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation deaths. There was no statistically significant difference in ICU and organ support outcomes between studies with complete follow-up versus studies without complete follow-up. Case fatality rates for ICU, MV, and RRT deaths were significantly higher in studies with patients admitted before April 31st 2020. INTERPRETATION: Coronavirus disease 2019 critical care outcomes have significantly improved since the start of the pandemic. Intensive care unit outcomes should be evaluated contextually (study quality, data completeness, and time) for the most accurate reporting and to effectively guide mortality predictions.

Tool to improve patient-provider interactions in adult primary care: Randomized controlled pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether an intervention to help patients prioritize goals for their visit would improve patient-provider communication and clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Randomized controlled pilot study. SETTING: Primary care clinic. PARTICIPANTS: There were 120 adult hypertensive patients enrolled. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive either usual care or a previsit patient activation card developed through a series of focus groups that prompted patients to articulate their needs and set priorities for their clinic visit. Encounters were audiorecorded, transcribed, and assessed using duplicate ratings of patient activation and decision making. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in medication adherence as measured by pill count at 4 and 12 weeks after the initial visit. Secondary outcomes evaluated patient-provider interaction quality (patient satisfaction, patient activation, shared decision making, patient trust, and physicians' perceived difficulty of the encounter), functional status, and blood pressure control. RESULTS: Of the 120 enrolled patients, 106 completed the baseline visit (mean age of 66 years, 53% women, 57% Black, 36% White). Participants had multiple comorbidities (median number of medications = 8). During the visit, there was greater patient activation in the intervention arm than in the control arm (4.4 vs 3.8, P = .047; ratings were based on a scale from 1 to 10). However, after the visit there were no differences in medication adherence (4 weeks: 45.8% vs 49.5%; 12 weeks: 49.4% vs 51.1%), blood pressure control (4 weeks: 133/78 mm Hg vs 131/77 mm Hg; 12 weeks: 129/77 mm Hg vs 129/76 mm Hg), or encounter satisfaction (78.6% vs 73.8% fully satisfied; P = .63). There were also no differences in shared decision making, patients' trust, or perceived difficulty of the encounter. CONCLUSION: A single previsit tool designed to prompt patients to set a prioritized agenda improved patient activation during the visit, but did not affect the quality of the interaction or postvisit patient-centred outcomes.

Women's Preventive Services Initiative recommends screening women for anxiety.

SOURCE CITATION: Gregory KD, Chelmow D, Nelson HD, et al. Screening for anxiety in adolescent and adult women: a recommendation from the Women's Preventive Services Initiative. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:48-56. 32510990.

Management of Dyslipidemia for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction: Synopsis of the 2020 Updated U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline.

DESCRIPTION: In June 2020, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) released a joint update of their clinical practice guideline for managing dyslipidemia to reduce cardiovascular disease risk in adults. This synopsis describes the major recommendations. METHODS: On 6 August to 9 August 2019, the VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group (EBPWG) convened a joint VA/DoD guideline development effort that included clinical stakeholders and conformed to the Institute of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline panel developed key questions, systematically searched and evaluated the literature (English-language publications from 1 December 2013 to 16 May 2019), and developed 27 recommendations and a simple 1-page algorithm. The recommendations were graded by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. RECOMMENDATIONS: This synopsis summarizes key features of the guideline in 7 crucial areas: targeting of statin dose (not low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals), additional tests for risk prediction, primary and secondary prevention, laboratory testing, physical activity, and nutrition.

Management of Dyslipidemia for cardiovascular disease risk Reduction: synopsis of the 2020 updated U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline

In June 2020, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) released a joint update of their clinical practice guideline for managing dyslipidemia to reduce cardiovascular disease risk in adults. This synopsis describes the major recommendations. The guideline panel developed key questions, systematically searched and evaluated the literature (English-language publications from 1 December 2013 to 16 May 2019), and developed 27 recommendations and a simple 1-page algorithm. The recommendations were graded by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. This synopsis summarizes key features of the guideline in 7 crucial areas: targeting of statin dose (not low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals), additional tests for risk prediction, primary and secondary prevention, laboratory testing, physical activity, and nutrition.

Direct-Observation Cohort Study of Shared Decision Making in a Primary Care Clinic.

Background. Observational studies suggest that shared medical decision making (SMDM) is suboptimal. Our objective was to assess patient preferences, ratings, and objective measurements of decision making and their impact on patient outcomes. Methods. Hypertensive adults presenting for routine care with their primary care physician completed previsit surveys assessing SMDM preferences. Postvisit surveys assessed the degree of SMDM during the encounter, patient satisfaction, and trust. Encounters were audiotaped and transcripts were coded for type of decisions made as well as SMDM quality using OPTION-5. Adherence and blood pressure were measured at baseline and at 4 weeks. Results. Among 105 encounters, there were 7.4 decisions per visit; most were basic, such as refills and routine testing. Objective measures of decision making indicated that the degree of SMDM was lower than reported by patients or physicians, although physician ratings were more accurate. Previsit, 54% of patients expressed a desire for equally shared medical decision making, 24% preferred physician dominated decision making, and 18% preferred that they make the decisions. Postvisit, patients reported experiencing SMDM in 57% of encounters, with high concordance between desired and perceived decision making. Discordance between the patient's desired and experienced SMDM reduced trust and satisfaction. The quality of shared decisions had no impact on adherence or blood pressure at 4 weeks. Limitations. Single site, small sample. Conclusions. Decisions are common during internal medicine primary care visits, and most are basic. Most patients preferred SMDM, and their perceptions of the visit decision-making style were concordant with their preferences although higher than objective measures suggested. Physician ratings of the quality of SMDM were more accurate than patient ratings. Discordance between patients' expected and experienced SMDM lowered satisfaction and trust.

Preparing Future Medical Educators: Development and Pilot Evaluation of a Student-Led Medical Education Elective.

INTRODUCTION: Although all medical school graduates are expected to be educators as residents, and subsequently as faculty, most students receive no formal education on how to teach. At the Uniformed Services University (USU), no formal educational training previously existed for senior medial students as they prepared for residency. A novel Medical Education Elective for MS4s was developed and run by MS4s with faculty mentoring at USU with implementation between January and June 2018. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The overall goal of the 4-week course was to provide a forum for MS4s to gain exposure to educational theories and teaching methods with an opportunity to practice learned skills in the underclass curriculum. The course's three core components were: didactics, observed teaching, and independent teaching. The course was evaluated via multiple methods including verbal and survey feedback from both first and fourth year medical students. RESULTS: The preliminary outcomes revealed the course had a positive impact on both first-year medical students (MS1s) and MS4s. As of May 2018, 100% (n = 59) of MS1s surveyed reported that having an MS4 teacher contributed positively to their learning experience. All MS4s surveyed (n = 12) agreed that the course enhanced their confidence in teaching. CONCLUSIONS: Medical education courses not only offer an opportunity for senior students to cultivate educational theoretical knowledge and teaching skills in preparation for residency but also contribute positively to the learning experiences of underclass students. Now that the elective has been piloted with initial data suggesting feasibility and benefit to both MS4 and MS1 students, the next steps are to focus on ensuring longevity of the course offering at USU and to consider working with senior students at other institutions that lack formal training in education to start similar student run medical education initiatives.

Leadership Training in Graduate Medical Education: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Leadership is a critical component of physician competence, yet the best approaches for developing leadership skills for physicians in training remain undefined. OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed the literature on existing leadership curricula in graduate medical education (GME) to inform leadership program development. METHODS: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, ERIC, EMBASE, and MedEdPORTAL through October 2015 using search terms to capture GME leadership curricula. Abstracts were reviewed for relevance, and included studies were retrieved for full-text analysis. Article quality was assessed using the Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) index. RESULTS: A total of 3413 articles met the search criteria, and 52 were included in the analysis. Article quality was low, with 21% (11 of 52) having a BEME score of 4 or 5. Primary care specialties were the most represented (58%, 30 of 52). The majority of programs were open to all residents (81%, 42 of 52). Projects and use of mentors or coaches were components of 46% and 48% of curricula, respectively. Only 40% (21 of 52) were longitudinal throughout training. The most frequent pedagogic methods were lectures, small group activities, and cases. Common topics included teamwork, leadership models, and change management. Evaluation focused on learner satisfaction and self-assessed knowledge. Longitudinal programs were more likely to be successful. CONCLUSIONS: GME leadership curricula are heterogeneous and limited in effectiveness. Small group teaching, project-based learning, mentoring, and coaching were more frequently used in higher-quality studies.