JOURNAL CLUB: Incidence of Complications Following Fluoroscopically Guided Lumbar Punctures and Myelograms.

OBJECTIVE: Headaches due to CSF leak are a well-described complication of dural puncture. It is uncertain how long patients should be observed after dural puncture to reduce the risk of headache. Most of the literature has focused on dural punctures performed without fluoroscopic guidance. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of complications from fluoroscopically guided dural punctures, with attention to predictive factors such as the length of bed rest after the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 2141 fluoroscopically guided dural punctures performed over a 5-year period by a single radiology practitioner assistant. All patients were contacted 48-72 hours after the procedure to assess for complications. Complications were categorized according to whether the patient reported having severe headache (requiring epidural blood patch for treatment), any headache, or any complaint. Using a multivariate logistic regression model, we assessed several possible predictors of complication: patient age, patient sex, needle caliber, puncture site, distance driven after recovery, length of postprocedural bed rest, contrast concentration, and contrast volume. RESULTS: In all, 0.8% of patients reported having a severe headache, 2.2% reported having any headache, and 2.6% reported having any complaint. In the multivariate analysis, age and sex were predictive of complication rates (with younger women having higher rates), but the other variables were not predictive. In particular, length of postprocedural bed rest showed statistical equivalence. CONCLUSION: Fluoroscopically guided dural punctures result in few complications compared with lumbar punctures performed without fluoroscopic guidance. Postprocedural bed rest greater than 2 hours does not reduce complication rates for fluoroscopically guided lumbar punctures.

Hold-over admissions: are they educational for residents?

PURPOSE: Since implementation of resident duty-hour restrictions, many academic medical centers utilize night-float teams to admit patients during off hours. Patients are transferred to other resident physicians the subsequent morning as "hold-over admissions." Despite the increase of hold-over admissions, there are limited data on resident perceptions of their educational value. This study investigated resident perceptions of hold-over admissions, and whether they approach hold-over admissions differently than new admissions. METHOD: Survey of internal medicine residents at an academic medical center. RESULTS: A total of 111 residents responded with a response rate of 71 %. Residents reported spending 56.2 min (standard deviation [SD] 18.9) compared to 80.0 min (SD 25.8) admitting new patients (p < 0.01). Residents reported spending significantly (p < 0.01) less time reviewing the medical record, performing histories, examining patients, devising care plans and writing orders in hold-over admissions compared to new admissions. Residents had neutral views on the educational value of hold-over admissions. Features that significantly (p < 0.01) increased the educational value of admissions included severe illness, patient complexity, and being able to write the initial patient care orders. Residents estimated 42.5 % (SD 14) of their admissions were hold-over patients. CONCLUSIONS: Residents spend less time in all aspects of admitting hold-over patients. Despite less time spent admitting hold-over patients, residents had neutral views on the educational value of such admissions.

Educating Our Future Medical Leaders: An Innovative Longitudinal Course Across Surgical and Medical Specialties in Graduate Education.

Problem: Increasing healthcare system complexity, multidisciplinary care delivery, and the need to deliver high-quality, cost-effective care drive a critical need for leadership development. Currently, few examples of multidisciplinary leadership development exist in the medical education literature. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has identified leadership domains as essential milestones in residency education, encompassing areas such as interpersonal communication, quality improvement, and systems-based practice. Presently, published GME leadership curricula vary widely in content, delivery, and duration and rarely include multispecialty cohorts. Approach: The study authors designed and implemented a longitudinal leadership curriculum for a multispecialty cohort of senior residents and fellows from multiple hospitals within a large integrated GME program. Between July 2022-June 2023, authors delivered 12 monthly sessions on core leadership concepts. Sessions delivered relevant work-based content via large-group didactics with embedded opportunities for small-group interactive experiential and reflective practice, critical thinking, and application. Outcomes: Thirty GME trainees participated in the longitudinal curriculum. Interval pre-/post-session assessments demonstrated significant improvement in composite scores for 6 of 9 sessions assessed. Participants rated each module's overall importance, applicability, and acceptability highly on a summative program evaluation. Next Steps: This longitudinal leadership curriculum adheres to best leadership development practices, demonstrates improvement in knowledge and self-reported attitudes and behaviors related to cognitive, character, and emotional leadership domains, and develops a psychologically safe community of practice for GME participants.

Virtual Brunches to Enhance Recruitment of Residents and Fellows Who Self-Identify as Underrepresented in Medicine.

Background: Our institution, along with many others, struggles to recruit residents and fellows who identify as underrepresented in medicine (UIM). There have been various program-level interventions implemented across the nation; however, little is known about graduate medical education (GME)-wide recruiting events for UIM trainees. Objective: We describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of a GME-wide recruitment program, Virtual UIM Recruitment Diversity Brunches (VURDBs), to meet this need. Methods: A virtual, 2-hour event was held 6 times on Sunday afternoons between September 2021 and January 2022. We surveyed participants on a rating of the VURDBs from excellent (4) to fair (1) and their likelihood of recommending the event to their colleagues from extremely (4) to not at all (1). We used institutional data to compare pre- and post-implementation groups using a 2-sample test of proportions. Results: Across 6 sessions, 280 UIM applicants participated. The response rate of our survey was 48.9% (137 of 280). Fifty-eight percent (79 of 137) rated the event as excellent, and 94.2% (129 of 137) were extremely or very likely to recommend the event. The percentage of new resident and fellow hires who identify as UIM significantly increased from 10.9% (67 of 612) in academic year 2021-2022 to 15.4% (104 of 675) in academic year 2022-2023. The percentage of brunch attendees matriculating into our programs in academic year 2022-2023 was 7.9% (22 of 280). Conclusions: VURDBs are a feasible intervention associated with increased rates of trainees identifying as UIM matriculating in our GME programs.

Implementing faculty evaluation of written sign-out.

PURPOSE: Recently the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandated decreased shift duration for intern physicians to no more than 16 hours. Such work-hour restrictions are likely to increase patient care hand-offs. It is well accepted that sign-out (i.e., hand-off) processes are error prone and lack standardization. Moreover, many residency programs do not evaluate sign-out. We designed and tested whether a sign-out evaluation process could be implemented to improve written sign-out. METHOD: Based on observed sign-out deficiencies at our institution we adapted a simple curriculum incorporating the SIGNOUT mnemonic, which we paired with weekly faculty member evaluation and feedback on sign-out using a structured sign-out evaluation tool. Later in the week, written sign-out was independently scored by 2-blinded senior resident reviewers who compared the inclusion of sign-out content, organization, and readability. RESULTS: Compared to baseline data in 128 written sign-outs, the pairing of a 1-page curriculum with weekly faculty member evaluation of written sign-out improved the inclusion of advanced directives from 38% to 69% (p < .001) and anticipatory guidance from a mean score of 1.8 (SD = 1.2) to 2.3 (SD = 1.5) on a 5-point scale (p = .01) in 177 written sign-outs. Readability and organization were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: A simple curriculum paired with structured faculty evaluation and feedback can improve some parameters of sign-out. Structured evaluative sign-out tools may be useful to improve and teach sign-out skills.

Residency and Fellowship Program Leaders' Perceptions of Virtual Recruitment and Interviewing.

Background: Virtual recruitment is a new and more cost-effective alternative to traditional in-person recruitment in academic medicine. However, little is known about the perceived repercussions of the switch across a variety of training settings. Objective: To describe the perceptions of graduate medical education program leaders about virtual matching and preferred format for future recruitment within an integrated health care delivery system sponsoring residency and fellowship programs at both university- and community-based primary teaching sites. Methods: We surveyed program leadership of 136 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education programs at a single sponsoring institution in April 2021, following residency match results but before matched applicants began programs. The 40-item survey pertained to various aspects of recruitment. Select questions were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics, Student's t test, and ordinal linear regression models were used for analysis. Results: Out of 136 programs, 129 (94.8%) responded. Overall, preferred format for recruitment was neutral, although there was wide heterogeneity of responses. Programs felt that virtual recruitment marginally decreased their ability to describe strengths but did not affect the strength or diversity of their matched class. Community sites preferred in-person recruitment. Conclusions: Programs did not perceive that virtual recruitment affected the strength or diversity of their 2021 matched class, although community programs were more likely to prefer in-person formats.

Do Lower Costs for Applicants Come at the Expense of Program Perception? A Cross-Sectional Survey Study of Virtual Residency Interviews.

Background: Travel costs and application fees make in-person residency interviews expensive, compounding existing financial burdens on medical students. We hypothesized virtual interviews (VI) would be associated with decreased costs for applicants compared to in-person interviews (IPI) but at the expense of gathering information with which to assess the program. Objective: To survey senior medical students and postgraduate year (PGY)-1 residents regarding their financial burden and program perception during virtual versus in-person interviews. Methods: The authors conducted a single center, multispecialty study comparing costs of IPI vs VI from 2020-2021. Fourth-year medical students and PGY-1 residents completed one-time surveys regarding interview costs and program perception. The authors compared responses between IPI and VI groups. Potential debt accrual was calculated for 3- and 7-year residencies. Results: Two hundred fifty-two (of 884, 29%) surveys were completed comprising 75 of 169 (44%) IPI and 177 of 715 (25%) VI respondents. The VI group had significantly lower interview costs compared to the IPI group (median $1,000 [$469-$2,050 IQR] $784-$1,216 99% CI vs $3,200 [$1,700-$5,500 IQR] $2,404-$3,996 99% CI, P<.001). The VI group scored lower for feeling the interview process was an accurate representation of the residency program (3.3 [0.5] vs 4.1 [0.7], P<.001). Assuming interview costs were completely loan-funded, the IPI group will have accumulated potential total loan amounts $2,334 higher than the VI group at 2% interest and $2,620 at 6% interest. These differences were magnified for a 7-year residency. Conclusions: Virtual interviews save applicants thousands of dollars at the expense of their perception of the residency program.

Resident sign-out and patient hand-offs: opportunities for improvement.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient care is characterized by multiple transitions of patient care responsibilities. In most residency programs trainees manage transitions via verbal, written, or combined methods of communication termed "sign-out." Often sign-out occurs without standardization or supervision. PURPOSE: The purpose was to assess daily sign-out with a goal of identifying aspects of this process most in need of improvement. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational cohort study of interns' sign-out conducted by industrial engineering students. Daily sign-out was analyzed for inclusion of multiple criteria and scored on organization (on a scale of 0-4) based on how effectively written information was conveyed. RESULTS: We observed 124 unique verbal and written sign-outs. We found that 99% of sign-outs included a general hospital course. Sign-outs were well organized with a mean of 3.1, though substantial variation was noted (SD = 0.8). Directions for anticipated patient events were included in only 42% of sign-outs. Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) or advanced directive discussions were reported in only 11% of sign-outs. Only 50% of successive daily sign-outs were updated. CONCLUSIONS: We found variability in the content and organization of interns' sign-out, possibly reflecting a lack of instruction and supervision. Standardization of sign-out content, and education on good sign-out skills are increasingly important as patient hand-offs become more frequent.

Making Residents Part of the Safety Culture: Improving Error Reporting and Reducing Harms.

OBJECTIVES: Reporting medical errors is a focus of the patient safety movement. As frontline physicians, residents are optimally positioned to recognize errors and flaws in systems of care. Previous work highlights the difficulty of engaging residents in identification and/or reduction of medical errors and in integrating these trainees into their institutions' cultures of safety. METHODS: The authors describe the implementation of a longitudinal, discipline-based, multifaceted curriculum to enhance the reporting of errors by pediatric residents at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. The key elements of this curriculum included providing the necessary education to identify medical errors with an emphasis on systems-based causes, modeling of error reporting by faculty, and integrating error reporting and discussion into the residents' daily activities. The authors tracked monthly error reporting rates by residents and other health care professionals, in addition to serious harm event rates at the institution. RESULTS: The interventions resulted in significant increases in error reports filed by residents, from 3.6 to 37.8 per month over 4 years (P < 0.0001). This increase in resident error reporting correlated with a decline in serious harm events, from 15.0 to 8.1 per month over 4 years (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Integrating patient safety into the everyday resident responsibilities encourages frequent reporting and discussion of medical errors and leads to improvements in patient care. Multiple simultaneous interventions are essential to making residents part of the safety culture of their training hospitals.

How Successful Are Residents and Fellows at Quality Improvement?

BACKGROUND: Nationally, there is an expectation that residents and fellows participate in quality improvement (QI), preferably interprofessionally. Hospitals and educators invest time and resources in projects, but little is known about success rates or what fosters success. PURPOSE: To understand what proportion of trainee QI projects were successful and whether there were predictors of success. METHODS: We examined resident and fellow QI projects in an integrated healthcare system that supports diverse training programs in multiple hospitals over 2 years. All projects were reviewed to determine whether they represented actual QI. Projects determined as QI were considered completed or successful based on QI project sponsor self-report. Multiple characteristics were compared between successful and unsuccessful projects. RESULTS: Trainees submitted 258 proposals, of which 106 (41.1%) represented actual QI. Non-QI projects predominantly represented needs assessments or retrospective data analyses. Seventy-six percent (81/106) of study sponsors completed surveys about their projects. Less than 25% of projects (59/258) represented actual QI and were successful. Project category was predictive of success, specifically those aimed at preventive care or education. CONCLUSION: Less than a quarter of trainee QI projects represent successful QI. IMPLICATIONS: Hospitals and training programs should identify interventions to improve trainee QI experience.

A Qualitative Analysis of Resident Adverse Event Reporting: What's Holding Us Back.

This study utilized focus groups of residents, who report adverse events at differing rates depending on their hospital site, to better understand barriers to residents' reporting and identify modifiable aspects of an institution's culture that could encourage resident event reporting. Focus groups included residents who rotated at 3 hospitals and represented 4 training programs. Focus groups were audio recorded and analyzed using qualitative methods. A total of 64 residents participated in 8 focus groups. Reporting behavior varied by hospital culture. Residents worried about damage to their professional relationships and lacked insight into the benefits of multiple reports of the same event or how human factors engineering can prevent errors. Residents did not understand how reporting affects litigation. Residents at other academic institutions likely experience similar barriers. This study illustrates that resident reporting is modifiable by changing hospital culture, but hospitals have only a few opportunities to mishandle reporting before resident reporting attitudes solidify.

Encouraging Resident Adverse Event Reporting: A Qualitative Study of Suggestions from the Front Lines.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about what motivates residents to report adverse events. The goals of the qualitative study were to: (1) better understand facilitators to residents' event reporting and (2) identify effective interventions that encourage residents to report. METHODS: The authors conducted focus groups of upper-level residents from 4 training programs (2 internal medicine, a pediatric, and a combined medicine-pediatric) who rotated at 3 institutions within a large healthcare system in 2016. Quantitative data on reporting experience were gathered. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Two coders reviewed transcripts using the editing approach and organized codes into themes. RESULTS: Sixty-four residents participated in 8 focus groups. Residents were universally exposed to reportable events and knew how to report. Residents' reporting behavior varied by site according to local culture, with residents filing more reports at the pediatric hospital compared to other sites, but all groups expressed similar general views about facilitators to reporting. Facilitators included familiarity with the investigation process, reporting via telephone, and routine safety educational sessions with safety administrators. Residents identified specific interventions that encouraged reporting at the pediatric hospital, including incorporating an attending physician review of events into sign-out and training on error disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into what motivates resident event reporting and describes concrete interventions to increase reporting. Our findings are consistent with the Theoretical Domains Framework of behavioral change. These strategies could prove successful at other pediatric hospitals to build a culture that values reporting and prepares residents as patient safety champions.

Resident Case Volume Correlates with Clinical Performance: Finding the Sweet Spot.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the total number of studies interpreted during radiology residency correlates with clinical performance as measured by objective criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of three graduating classes of radiology residents from a single residency program between the years 2015-2017. The total number of studies interpreted by each resident during residency was tracked. Clinical performance was determined by tracking an individual resident's major discordance rate. A major discordance was recorded when there was a difference between the preliminary resident interpretation and final attending interpretation that could immediately impact patient care. Accreditation council for graduate medical education milestones at the completion of residency, Diagnostic radiology in-training scores in the third year, and score from the American board of radiology core exam were also tabulated. Pearson correlation coefficients and polynomial regression analysis were used to identify correlations between the total number of interpreted films and clinical, test, and milestone performance. RESULTS: Thirty-seven residents interpreted a mean of 12,709 studies (range 8898-19,818; standard deviation [SD] 2351.9) in residency with a mean major discordance rate of 1.1% (range 0.34%-2.54%; stand dev 0.49%). There was a nonlinear correlation between total number of interpreted films and performance. As the number of interpreted films increased to approximately 16,000, clinical performance (p = 0.004) and test performance (p = 0.01) improved, but volumes over 16,000 correlated with worse performance. CONCLUSION: The total number of studies interpreted during radiology training correlates with performance. Residencies should endeavor to find the "sweet spot": the amount of work that maximizes clinical exposure and knowledge without overburdening trainees.

Do Residency Selection Factors Predict Radiology Resident Performance?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study is to determine what information in medical student residency applications predicts radiology residency success as defined by objective clinical performance data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of residents who entered our institution's residency program through the National Resident Matching Program as postgraduate year 2 residents and completed the program over the past 2 years. Medical school grades, selection to Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) Honor Society, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, publication in peer-reviewed journals, and whether the applicant was from a peer institution were the variables examined. Clinical performance was determined by calculating each resident's cumulative major discordance rate for on-call cases the resident read and gave a preliminary interpretation. A major discordance was defined as a difference between the preliminary resident and the final attending interpretations that could immediately impact the care of the patient. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine significant variables. RESULTS: Twenty-seven residents provided preliminary reports on call for 67,145 studies. The mean major discordance rate was 1.08% (range 0.34%-2.54%). Higher USMLE Step 1 scores, publication before residency, and election to AOA Honor Society were all statistically significant predictors of lower major discordance rates (P values 0.01, 0.01, and <0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Overall resident performance was excellent. There are predictors that help select the better performing residents, namely higher USMLE Step 1 scores, one to two publications during medical school, and election to AOA in the junior year of medical school.

Condition Help: A Patient- and Family-Initiated Rapid Response System.

BACKGROUND: Rapid response teams (RRTs) help in delivering safe, timely care. Typically they are activated by clinicians using specific parameters. Allowing patients and families to activate RRTs is a novel intervention. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center developed and implemented a patient- and family-initiated rapid response system called Condition Help (CH). METHODS: When the CH system is activated, a patient care liaison or an on-duty administrator meets bedside with the unit charge nurse to address the patient's concerns. In this study, we collected demographic data, call reasons, call designations (safety or nonsafety), and outcome information for all CH calls made during the period January 2012 through June 2015. RESULTS: Two hundred forty patients/family members made 367 CH calls during the study period. Most calls were made by patients (76.8%) rather than family members (21.8%). Of the 240 patients, 43 (18%) made multiple calls; their calls accounted for 46.3% of all calls (170/367). Inadequate pain control was the reason for the call in most cases (48.2%), followed by dissatisfaction with staff (12.5%). The majority of calls involved nonsafety issues (83.4%) rather than safety issues (11.4%). In 41.4% of cases, a change in care was made. CONCLUSIONS: Patient- and family-initiated RRTs are designed to engage patients and families in providing safer care. In the CH system, safety issues are identified, but the majority of calls involve nonsafety issues. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:157-161.

Comparing Trainee and Staff Perceptions of Patient Safety Culture.

PURPOSE: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education implemented the Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) program to evaluate and improve the learning environment in teaching hospitals. Hospitals receive a report after a CLER visit with observations about patient safety, among other domains, the accuracy of which is unknown. Thus, the authors set out to identify complementary measures of trainees' patient safety experience. METHOD: In 2014, they administered the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture to residents and fellows and general staff at 10 hospitals in an integrated health system. The survey measured perceptions of patient safety in 12 domains and incorporated two outcome measures (number of medical errors reported and overall patient safety). Domain scores were calculated and compared between trainees and staff. RESULTS: Of 1,426 trainees, 926 responded (65% response rate). Of 18,815 staff, 12,015 responded (64% response rate). Trainees and staff scored five domains similarly-communication openness, facility management support for patient safety, organizational learning/continuous improvement, teamwork across units, and handoffs/transitions of care. Trainees scored four domains higher than staff-nonpunitive response to error, staffing, supervisor/manager expectations and actions promoting patient safety, and teamwork within units. Trainees scored three domains lower than staff-feedback and communication about error, frequency of event reporting, and overall perceptions of patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, trainees had comparable to more favorable perceptions of patient safety culture compared with staff. They did identify opportunities for improvement though. Hospitals can use perceptions of patient safety culture to complement CLER visit reports to improve patient safety.