Sources of Joy In Medical Educators as Described by the PERMA Model.

Phenomenon: Burnout is prevalent amongst long-practicing physicians. For medical educators, it has deleterious effects not only on the educator themselves, but also the students they are teaching. Though significant research has focused on factors associated with burnout, there is limited understanding of its counter: how physicians, particularly medical educators, derive joy from their work. Approach: This qualitative study included 15 highly-rated clinician educators in Internal Medicine who took part in individual semi-structured interviews. Participants were invited to discuss their sources of professional joy. After transcription, we used thematic content analysis: 50 themes were identified. Themes were then coded using the domains of the PERMA (Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment) model of positive psychology, assigning each theme a best fit domain. Forty-five themes were mapped into the PERMA model. Findings: When describing professional joy, highly-rated clinician educators displayed high levels of overlap with all domains of the PERMA model. Interaction with the learner was a prominent source of professional joy, particularly within Positive Emotion, Engagement, and Relationship domains. Insights: Our findings indicate that the PERMA model appropriately defines the sources of professional joy for these educators. Future research could employ this model to identify targets for interventions aimed at amplifying joy at work for this group.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Clinical Learning Environment: Addressing Identified Gaps and Seizing Opportunities.

The clinical learning environment (CLE) encompasses the learner's personal characteristics and experiences, social relationships, organizational culture, and the institution's physical and virtual infrastructure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, all 4 of these parts of the CLE have undergone a massive and rapid disruption. Personal and social communications have been limited to virtual interactions or shifted to unfamiliar clinical spaces because of redeployment. Rapid changes to the organizational culture required prompt adaptations from learners and educators in their complex organizational systems yet caused increased confusion and anxiety among them. A traditional reliance on a physical infrastructure for classical educational practices in the CLE was challenged when all institutions had to undergo a major transition to a virtual learning environment. However, disruptions spurred exciting innovations in the CLE. An entire cohort of physicians and learners underwent swift adjustments in their personal and professional development and identity as they rose to meet the clinical and educational challenges they faced due to COVID-19. Social networks and collaborations were expanded beyond traditional institutional walls and previously held international boundaries within multiple specialties. Specific aspects of the organizational and educational culture, including epidemiology, public health, and medical ethics, were brought to the forefront in health professions education, while the physical learning environment underwent a rapid transition to a virtual learning space. As health professions education continues in the era of COVID-19 and into a new era, educators must take advantage of these dynamic systems to identify additional gaps and implement meaningful change. In this article, health professions educators and learners from multiple institutions and specialties discuss the gaps and weaknesses exposed, opportunities revealed, and strategies developed for optimizing the CLE in the post-COVID-19 world.

Are Providers Prepared to Engage Younger Women in Shared Decision-Making for Mammography?

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends providers engage women aged 40-49 years in shared decision-making (SDM) for mammography. This requires mammography knowledge, adequate time to discuss screening, and self-confidence in doing so. Yet, to date, no studies have assessed provider readiness to engage younger women in SDM. METHODS: An online survey of primary care providers was conducted in Cleveland in 2015. It inquired about knowledge of screening benefits and harms, including the impact of screening on mortality, risk of additional imaging, biopsy, overtreatment following screening, and likelihood of a true-positive result. Key knowledge was defined as accurate estimation of the impact of screening on mortality and risk of overtreatment. Respondents reported time typically spent with patients discussing mammography, self-assessed competence in engaging patients in screening discussions, and perspectives on SDM for mammography. RESULTS: Of 612 providers invited, 220 completed the survey (response rate: 36%). Knowledge of harms was low: 90% and 82% underestimated the risk of additional imaging or breast biopsy, respectively. Sixty-two percent correctly estimated screening's impact on mortality. The majority (83%) believed in SDM for mammography, yet, most (77%) spent less than 5 minutes with patients discussing screening. Of those who believed in SDM, only 10% had key mammography knowledge and also felt highly competent at engaging women in screening discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Most providers in our sample were inadequately equipped to engage women in SDM for mammography. Broad-based efforts are needed to increase the capacity of providers to engage younger women in decision-making.

Training internal medicine residents to manage chronic pain and prescription opioid misuse.

BACKGROUND: Residents feel unprepared to care for patients with chronic pain on long-term opioids who exhibit signs of prescription opioid misuse. OBJECTIVE: Describe an educational intervention for internal medicine residents to improve confidence, practices, attitudes, and self-reported knowledge of resources for chronic pain and opioid misuse. METHODS: The intervention included 2 sessions. Session 1 (3 hours): a lecture on chronic pain, prescription opioid misuse, and opioid use disorders and communication skills practice. The residents were asked to use one of these skills during the following week. Session 2 (1.5 hours): debriefing of patient encounters and overview of: prescription opioid monitoring strategies, discontinuation of prescription opioids when appropriate, and treatment for opioid use disorders. Pre- and post-assessments evaluated change in residents' safe opioid prescribing confidence, self-reported practices, attitudes, and self-reported knowledge of available patient resources. RESULTS: Ninety-one residents completed the intervention, with 44 and 43 completing the pre- and post-assessments, respectively. Utilizing a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree 4 = strongly agree), residents reported improved confidence in skills managing patients with chronic pain (3.0 vs. 2.4, P < .0001), skills identifying which patients with chronic pain have developed an opioid use disorder (3.0 vs. 2.4, P < .0001), and understanding how to monitor for benefit versus harm (3.0 vs. 2.5, P < .0005). They also noted improved ability identifying resources for patients with chronic pain and opioid use disorders. There was a nonsignificant improvement in resident reported comfort talking to patients about the need to discontinue opioids. Residents did not report an increase in use of safe opioid prescribing monitoring strategies or feelings of support in their prescribing decisions by preceptors. CONCLUSIONS: A brief training can improve residents' self-reported knowledge and confidence in managing patients with chronic pain and safe opioid prescribing practices. How this change in confidence affects patient care requires further study.

Factors Associated with Routine Recommendation of Mammography for Women Aged 40-49: Provider Characteristics and Screening Influences.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against screening mammography in women younger than 50 years, rates remain high, suggesting that screening recommendations may be motivated by other factors. The objective of this study was to understand provider-reported influences on screening recommendations for women 40 to 49 years old at average risk for breast cancer. METHODS: An online survey of primary care providers was conducted at four health centers in Cleveland, Ohio in 2015. Provider-reported routine recommendation of mammography for women aged 40 to 49 at average risk for breast cancer was the primary outcome. The independent measures included influence of electronic health records, national guidelines, institutional policy, patient preferences, concerns about overtreatment, concerns about false-positives, and interest in early detection on screening recommendations. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate the odds of recommending screening by potential influences, controlling for provider characteristics and provider-assessed balance of harms and benefits of screening in this age group. RESULTS: Of 612 providers invited, 220 completed the survey (response rate 36%); 69% routinely recommended screening and 24% believed that the harms of screening in younger women outweighed the benefits. Being influenced by institutional policy was associated with higher odds of recommending screening (odds ratio [OR] 4.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-12.9), as was interest in early detection (OR 4.19, 95% CI 1.31-12.9). Conversely, strong influence of national guidelines was associated with a lower odds of recommending screening (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.71). The influence of patient preferences was not associated with screening recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Providers face competing influences on screening recommendations for younger patients, some of which may be at odds with their beliefs. Institutional policy change allowing individually tailored screening discussions may improve patient-centered care.

Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms in outpatient primary care clinics.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines recommend one-time abdominal aortic aneurysm ultrasound screening for men aged 65 to 75 years who ever smoked. Reported screening rates have been 13% to 26% but did not include computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and nonaortic abdominal ultrasound, which provide adequate visualization of the aorta. The objective of this study was to evaluate rates of screening performed intentionally with ultrasound and incidentally with other abdominal imaging, determine rates of redundant screening, and evaluate patient and physician characteristics associated with screening. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of patient encounters in 2007 and 2012 to determine abdominal aortic aneurysm screening trends in primary care practices. Participants included all patients who were seen in a primary care office and were eligible for screening by USPSTF guidelines. The primary outcome was percentage of eligible patients screened for abdominal aortic aneurysm by ultrasound or other abdominal imaging. RESULTS: There were 15,120 patients eligible for screening in 2007, and 22,355 in 2012. Screening with ultrasounds increased from 3.6% in 2007 to 9.2% in 2012. Screening with any imaging that included the aorta increased from 31% in 2007 to 41% in 2012. Of 2595 screening ultrasounds performed in either cohort, 800 (31%) were performed on patients who had already undergone another imaging modality. Of 153 physicians who had >50 eligible patients, rates of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening ranged from 7.5% to 79% (median 39%, interquartile range 31%-47%), and rates of ultrasound screening ranged from 0% to 47% (median 6.3%, interquartile range 3.6%-11.4%). Physician characteristics positively associated with screened patients included female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.54), specialty (Internal Medicine vs Family Medicine: OR 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54), and location (academic medical center vs family health center: OR 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04-1.62). CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening rates remain below 50%, but are improving over time. Screening by individual physicians varied widely, indicating substantial opportunity for educational interventions. Most abdominal aortic aneurysm screening is completed incidentally, and some patients later undergo unnecessary ultrasound screening. Before ordering screening, physicians and electronic health record-based reminder tools should ensure that the aorta has not been previously visualized.