RESUMO
Letters of recommendation (LORs) are an essential component of a career in medicine. The process for obtaining certain letters, particularly those associated with scheduled periods of professional transition, often is governed by established institutional or specialty norms. The process of requesting LORs in more common scenarios-local or national awards, committee assignments, and leadership positions-many times is less clearly defined, however. Despite the important role that LORs play in professional development, the published literature on how to solicit a recommendation is limited, creating challenges for both those requesting LORs ("applicants") and the letter writers. This perspective piece offers insight on how to best identify and communicate with a potential writer. These suggestions are derived from the limited relevant literature and from the authors' experience both with requesting letters themselves and writing letters as leaders in undergraduate and graduate medical education. The goal is to reduce ambiguity for applicants and ensure that writers receive the information necessary to provide an informed and effective recommendation.
Assuntos
Internato e Residência , Medicina , Humanos , Educação de Pós-Graduação em Medicina , Redação , Seleção de PessoalRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing in the United States nearly tripled from 1999 to 2015, and opioid overdose deaths doubled in the same time frame. Emergency departments (EDs) may play a pivotal role in the opioid epidemic as a source of first-time opioid exposure; however, many prescribers are generally unaware of their prescribing behaviors relative to their peers. METHODS: All 117 ED prescribers at an urban academic medical center were provided with regular feedback on individual rates of opioid prescribing relative to their de-identified peers. To evaluate the effect of this intervention on the departmental rate of opioid prescribing, a statistical process control (SPC) chart was created to identify special cause variation, and an interrupted time series analysis was conducted to evaluate the immediate effect of the intervention and any change in the postintervention trend due to the intervention. RESULTS: The aggregate opioid prescribing rate in the preintervention period was 8.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.3%-8.9%), while the aggregate postintervention prescribing rate was 5.8% (95% CI: 5.5%-6.1%). The SPC chart revealed special cause variation in both the pre- and postintervention periods, with an overall downtrend of opioid prescribing rates across the evaluation period and flattening of rates in the final four blocks. Interrupted time series analysis demonstrated a significant immediate downward effect of the intervention and a nonsignificant additional decrease in postintervention trend. CONCLUSION: Implementation of peer-comparison opioid prescribing feedback was associated with a significant immediate reduction in the rate of ED discharge opioid prescribing.
