PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (925605)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Effect of a Physician-directed Educational Campaign on Performance of Proper Diabetic Foot Exams in an Outpatient Setting 
BACKGROUND
The established guidelines for a diabetes foot examination include assessing circulatory, skin, and neurological status to detect problems early and reduce the likelihood of amputation. Physician adherence to the guidelines for proper examination is less than optimal.
OBJECTIVE
Our objective was to increase compliance with the performance of a proper foot examination through a predominantly physician-directed interventional campaign.
METHODS
The study consisted of 3 parts: a retrospective chart review to estimate background compliance, an educational intervention, and prospective chart review at 3 and 6 months. A properly documented foot examination was defined as assessing at least 2 of the 3 necessary components. The educational intervention consisted of 2 lectures directed at resident physicians and a quality assurance announcement at a general internal medicine staff meeting. Clinic support staff were instructed to remove the shoes and socks of all diabetic patients when they were placed in exam rooms, and signs reminding diabetics were placed in each exam room.
RESULTS
There was a significant increase in the performance of proper foot examination over the course of the study (baseline 14.0%, 3 months 58.0%, 6 months 62.1%; P < .001). Documentation of any component of a proper foot examination also increased substantially (32.6%, 67.3%, 72.5%; P < .001). Additionally, performance of each component of a proper exam increased dramatically during the study: neurological (13.5%, 35.8%, 38.5%; P < .001), skin (23.0%, 64.2%, 69.2%; P < .001), and vascular (14.0%, 51.2%, 50.5%; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with diabetes are unlikely to have foot examinations in their primary medical care. A simple, low-cost educational intervention significantly improved the adherence to foot examination guidelines for patients with diabetes.
doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.10662.x
PMCID: PMC1494848  PMID: 12709092
diabetes; foot ulceration; foot exam; prevention; physical education
2.  Implementing the 2009 Institute of Medicine recommendations on resident physician work hours, supervision, and safety 
Long working hours and sleep deprivation have been a facet of physician training in the US since the advent of the modern residency system. However, the scientific evidence linking fatigue with deficits in human performance, accidents and errors in industries from aeronautics to medicine, nuclear power, and transportation has mounted over the last 40 years. This evidence has also spawned regulations to help ensure public safety across safety-sensitive industries, with the notable exception of medicine.
In late 2007, at the behest of the US Congress, the Institute of Medicine embarked on a year-long examination of the scientific evidence linking resident physician sleep deprivation with clinical performance deficits and medical errors. The Institute of Medicine’s report, entitled “Resident duty hours: Enhancing sleep, supervision and safety”, published in January 2009, recommended new limits on resident physician work hours and workload, increased supervision, a heightened focus on resident physician safety, training in structured handovers and quality improvement, more rigorous external oversight of work hours and other aspects of residency training, and the identification of expanded funding sources necessary to implement the recommended reforms successfully and protect the public and resident physicians themselves from preventable harm.
Given that resident physicians comprise almost a quarter of all physicians who work in hospitals, and that taxpayers, through Medicare and Medicaid, fund graduate medical education, the public has a deep investment in physician training. Patients expect to receive safe, high-quality care in the nation’s teaching hospitals. Because it is their safety that is at issue, their voices should be central in policy decisions affecting patient safety. It is likewise important to integrate the perspectives of resident physicians, policy makers, and other constituencies in designing new policies. However, since its release, discussion of the Institute of Medicine report has been largely confined to the medical education community, led by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).
To begin gathering these perspectives and developing a plan to implement safer work hours for resident physicians, a conference entitled “Enhancing sleep, supervision and safety: What will it take to implement the Institute of Medicine recommendations?” was held at Harvard Medical School on June 17–18, 2010. This White Paper is a product of a diverse group of 26 representative stakeholders bringing relevant new information and innovative practices to bear on a critical patient safety problem. Given that our conference included experts from across disciplines with diverse perspectives and interests, not every recommendation was endorsed by each invited conference participant. However, every recommendation made here was endorsed by the majority of the group, and many were endorsed unanimously. Conference members participated in the process, reviewed the final product, and provided input before publication. Participants provided their individual perspectives, which do not necessarily represent the formal views of any organization.
In September 2010 the ACGME issued new rules to go into effect on July 1, 2011. Unfortunately, they stop considerably short of the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations and those endorsed by this conference. In particular, the ACGME only applied the limitation of 16 hours to first-year resident physicans. Thus, it is clear that policymakers, hospital administrators, and residency program directors who wish to implement safer health care systems must go far beyond what the ACGME will require. We hope this White Paper will serve as a guide and provide encouragement for that effort.
Resident physician workload and supervision
By the end of training, a resident physician should be able to practice independently. Yet much of resident physicians’ time is dominated by tasks with little educational value. The caseload can be so great that inadequate reflective time is left for learning based on clinical experiences. In addition, supervision is often vaguely defined and discontinuous. Medical malpractice data indicate that resident physicians are frequently named in lawsuits, most often for lack of supervision. The recommendations are: The ACGME should adjust resident physicians workload requirements to optimize educational value. Resident physicians as well as faculty should be involved in work redesign that eliminates nonessential and noneducational activity from resident physician dutiesMechanisms should be developed for identifying in real time when a resident physician’s workload is excessive, and processes developed to activate additional providersTeamwork should be actively encouraged in delivery of patient care. Historically, much of medical training has focused on individual knowledge, skills, and responsibility. As health care delivery has become more complex, it will be essential to train resident and attending physicians in effective teamwork that emphasizes collective responsibility for patient care and recognizes the signs, both individual and systemic, of a schedule and working conditions that are too demanding to be safeHospitals should embrace the opportunities that resident physician training redesign offers. Hospitals should recognize and act on the potential benefits of work redesign, eg, increased efficiency, reduced costs, improved quality of care, and resident physician and attending job satisfactionAttending physicians should supervise all hospital admissions. Resident physicians should directly discuss all admissions with attending physicians. Attending physicians should be both cognizant of and have input into the care patients are to receive upon admission to the hospitalInhouse supervision should be required for all critical care services, including emergency rooms, intensive care units, and trauma services. Resident physicians should not be left unsupervised to care for critically ill patients. In settings in which the acuity is high, physicians who have completed residency should provide direct supervision for resident physicians. Supervising physicians should always be physically in the hospital for supervision of resident physicians who care for critically ill patientsThe ACGME should explicitly define “good” supervision by specialty and by year of training. Explicit requirements for intensity and level of training for supervision of specific clinical scenarios should be providedCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should use graduate medical education funding to provide incentives to programs with proven, effective levels of supervision. Although this action would require federal legislation, reimbursement rules would help to ensure that hospitals pay attention to the importance of good supervision and require it from their training programs
Resident physician work hours
Although the IOM “Sleep, supervision and safety” report provides a comprehensive review and discussion of all aspects of graduate medical education training, the report’s focal point is its recommendations regarding the hours that resident physicians are currently required to work. A considerable body of scientific evidence, much of it cited by the Institute of Medicine report, describes deteriorating performance in fatigued humans, as well as specific studies on resident physician fatigue and preventable medical errors.
The question before this conference was what work redesign and cultural changes are needed to reform work hours as recommended by the Institute of Medicine’s evidence-based report? Extensive scientific data demonstrate that shifts exceeding 12–16 hours without sleep are unsafe. Several principles should be followed in efforts to reduce consecutive hours below this level and achieve safer work schedules. The recommendations are: Limit resident physician work hours to 12–16 hour maximum shiftsA minimum of 10 hours off duty should be scheduled between shiftsResident physician input into work redesign should be actively solicitedSchedules should be designed that adhere to principles of sleep and circadian science; this includes careful consideration of the effects of multiple consecutive night shifts, and provision of adequate time off after night work, as specified in the IOM reportResident physicians should not be scheduled up to the maximum permissible limits; emergencies frequently occur that require resident physicians to stay longer than their scheduled shifts, and this should be anticipated in scheduling resident physicians’ work shiftsHospitals should anticipate the need for iterative improvement as new schedules are initiated; be prepared to learn from the initial phase-in, and change the plan as neededAs resident physician work hours are redesigned, attending physicians should also be considered; a potential consequence of resident physician work hour reduction and increased supervisory requirements may be an increase in work for attending physicians; this should be carefully monitored, and adjustments to attending physician work schedules made as needed to prevent unsafe work hours or working conditions for this group“Home call” should be brought under the overall limits of working hours; work load and hours should be monitored in each residency program to ensure that resident physicians and fellows on home call are getting sufficient sleepMedicare funding for graduate medical education in each hospital should be linked with adherence to the Institute of Medicine limits on resident physician work hours
Moonlighting by resident physicians
The Institute of Medicine report recommended including external as well as internal moonlighting in working hour limits. The recommendation is: All moonlighting work hours should be included in the ACGME working hour limits and actively monitored. Hospitals should formalize a moonlighting policy and establish systems for actively monitoring resident physician moonlighting
Safety of resident physicians
The “Sleep, supervision and safety” report also addresses fatigue-related harm done to resident physicians themselves. The report focuses on two main sources of physical injury to resident physicians impaired by fatigue, ie, needle-stick exposure to blood-borne pathogens and motor vehicle crashes. Providing safe transportation home for resident physicians is a logistical and financial challenge for hospitals. Educating physicians at all levels on the dangers of fatigue is clearly required to change driving behavior so that safe hospital-funded transport home is used effectively. Fatigue-related injury prevention (including not driving while drowsy) should be taught in medical school and during residency, and reinforced with attending physicians; hospitals and residency programs must be informed that resident physicians’ ability to judge their own level of impairment is impaired when they are sleep deprived; hence, leaving decisions about the capacity to drive to impaired resident physicians is not recommendedHospitals should provide transportation to all resident physicians who report feeling too tired to drive safely; in addition, although consecutive work should not exceed 16 hours, hospitals should provide transportation for all resident physicians who, because of unforeseen reasons or emergencies, work for longer than consecutive 24 hours; transportation under these circumstances should be automatically provided to house staff, and should not rely on self-identification or request
Training in effective handovers and quality improvement
Handover practice for resident physicians, attendings, and other health care providers has long been identified as a weak link in patient safety throughout health care settings. Policies to improve handovers of care must be tailored to fit the appropriate clinical scenario, recognizing that information overload can also be a problem. At the heart of improving handovers is the organizational effort to improve quality, an effort in which resident physicians have typically been insufficiently engaged. The recommendations are: Hospitals should train attending and resident physicians in effective handovers of careHospitals should create uniform processes for handovers that are tailored to meet each clinical setting; all handovers should be done verbally and face-to-face, but should also utilize written toolsWhen possible, hospitals should integrate hand-over tools into their electronic medical records (EMR) systems; these systems should be standardized to the extent possible across residency programs in a hospital, but may be tailored to the needs of specific programs and services; federal government should help subsidize adoption of electronic medical records by hospitals to improve signoutWhen feasible, handovers should be a team effort including nurses, patients, and familiesHospitals should include residents in their quality improvement and patient safety efforts; the ACGME should specify in their core competency requirements that resident physicians work on quality improvement projects; likewise, the Joint Commission should require that resident physicians be included in quality improvement and patient safety programs at teaching hospitals; hospital administrators and residency program directors should create opportunities for resident physicians to become involved in ongoing quality improvement projects and root cause analysis teams; feedback on successful quality improvement interventions should be shared with resident physicians and broadly disseminatedQuality improvement/patient safety concepts should be integral to the medical school curriculum; medical school deans should elevate the topics of patient safety, quality improvement, and teamwork; these concepts should be integrated throughout the medical school curriculum and reinforced throughout residency; mastery of these concepts by medical students should be tested on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) stepsFederal government should support involvement of resident physicians in quality improvement efforts; initiatives to improve quality by including resident physicians in quality improvement projects should be financially supported by the Department of Health and Human Services
Monitoring and oversight of the ACGME
While the ACGME is a key stakeholder in residency training, external voices are essential to ensure that public interests are heard in the development and monitoring of standards. Consequently, the Institute of Medicine report recommended external oversight and monitoring through the Joint Commission and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The recommendations are: Make comprehensive fatigue management a Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal; fatigue is a safety concern not only for resident physicians, but also for nurses, attending physicians, and other health care workers; the Joint Commission should seek to ensure that all health care workers, not just resident physicians, are working as safely as possibleFederal government, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, should encourage development of comprehensive fatigue management programs which all health systems would eventually be required to implementMake ACGME compliance with working hours a “ condition of participation” for reimbursement of direct and indirect graduate medical education costs; financial incentives will greatly increase the adoption of and compliance with ACGME standards
Future financial support for implementation
The Institute of Medicine’s report estimates that $1.7 billion (in 2008 dollars) would be needed to implement its recommendations. Twenty-five percent of that amount ($376 million) will be required just to bring hospitals into compliance with the existing 2003 ACGME rules. Downstream savings to the health care system could potentially result from safer care, but these benefits typically do not accrue to hospitals and residency programs, who have been asked historically to bear the burden of residency reform costs. The recommendations are: The Institute of Medicine should convene a panel of stakeholders, including private and public funders of health care and graduate medical education, to lay down the concrete steps necessary to identify and allocate the resources needed to implement the recommendations contained in the IOM “Resident duty hours: Enhancing sleep, supervision and safety” report. Conference participants suggested several approaches to engage public and private support for this initiativeEfforts to find additional funding to implement the Institute of Medicine recommendations should focus more broadly on patient safety and health care delivery reform; policy efforts focused narrowly upon resident physician work hours are less likely to succeed than broad patient safety initiatives that include residency redesign as a key componentHospitals should view the Institute of Medicine recommendations as an opportunity to begin resident physician work redesign projects as the core of a business model that embraces safety and ultimately saves resourcesBoth the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should take the Institute of Medicine recommendations into consideration when promulgating rules for innovation grantsThe National Health Care Workforce Commission should consider the Institute of Medicine recommendations when analyzing the nation’s physician workforce needs
Recommendations for future research
Conference participants concurred that convening the stakeholders and agreeing on a research agenda was key. Some observed that some sectors within the medical education community have been reluctant to act on the data. Several logical funders for future research were identified. But above all agencies, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is the only stakeholder that funds graduate medical education upstream and will reap savings downstream if preventable medical errors are reduced as a result of reform of resident physician work hours.
doi:10.2147/NSS.S19649
PMCID: PMC3630963  PMID: 23616719
resident; hospital; working hours; safety
3.  Clinical instructors' perception of a faculty development programme promoting postgraduate year-1 (PGY1) residents' ACGME six core competencies: a 2-year study 
BMJ Open  2011;1(2):e000200.
Objective
The six core competencies designated by Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) are essential for establishing a patient centre holistic medical system. The authors developed a faculty programme to promote the postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) resident, ACGME six core competencies. The study aims to assess the clinical instructors' perception, attitudes and subjective impression towards the various sessions of the ‘faculty development programme for teaching ACGME competencies.’
Methods
During 2009 and 2010, 134 clinical instructors participated in the programme to establish their ability to teach and assess PGY1 residents about ACGME competencies.
Results
The participants in the faculty development programme reported that the skills most often used while teaching were learnt during circuit and itinerant bedside, physical examination teaching, mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) evaluation demonstration, training workshop and videotapes of ‘how to teach ACGME competencies.’ Participants reported that circuit bedside teaching and mini-CEX evaluation demonstrations helped them in the interpersonal and communication skills domain, and that the itinerant teaching demonstrations helped them in the professionalism domain, while physical examination teaching and mini-CEX evaluation demonstrations helped them in the patients' care domain. Both the training workshop and videotape session increase familiarity with teaching and assessing skills. Participants who applied the skills learnt from the faculty development programme the most in their teaching and assessment came from internal medicine departments, were young attending physician and had experience as PGY1 clinical instructors.
Conclusions
According to the clinical instructors' response, our faculty development programme effectively increased their familiarity with various teaching and assessment skills needed to teach PGY1 residents and ACGME competencies, and these clinical instructors also then subsequently apply these skills.
Article summary
Article focus
In order to train PGY1 residents, we need to help clinical instructors to become familiar with the teaching and assessment skills that form the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education six core-competencies.
Our study used a self-reported questionnaires based analysis to evaluate the clinical instructors' perception to our faculty development programme.
Key messages
Participants reported that their most commonly used skills were learnt from itinerant and circuit bedside teaching, and mini-clinical evaluation exercise evaluation demonstration in our programme.
Participants also reported that the 40 h basic training course improved their abilities to train and assess PGY1 residents in patient care, interpersonal and communication skills, and medical knowledge domains whereas postcourse training workshop and videotape session enhanced their ability in system-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, and professionalism domains.
A serial follow-up questionnaire suggested that the degree of participant application of skills learnt from our programme increased progressively after finishing the 40 h basic training course, the postcourse training workshop and videotape session.
Strengths and limitations of this study
According to the clinical instructors' responses, our programme effectively increased their familiarity with teaching and assessment skills needed when teaching PGY1 residents' Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies and that these skills were subsequently applies.
This study was limited by the fact that questionnaire used to track and assess the effectiveness of the training programme may have had information and recall bias. In addition, this study had a relatively small sample size and did not contain a control group. However, no controlled educational trials on this subject have been published as yet.
doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000200
PMCID: PMC3225591  PMID: 22116089
4.  Use of a Structured Template to Facilitate Practice-Based Learning and Improvement Projects 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires residency programs to meet and demonstrate outcomes across 6 competencies. Measuring residents' competency in practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI) is particularly challenging.
Purpose
We developed an educational tool to meet ACGME requirements for PBLI. The PBLI template helped programs document quality improvement (QI) projects and supported increased scholarly activity surrounding PBLI learning.
Methods
We reviewed program requirements for 43 residency and fellowship programs and identified specific PBLI requirements for QI activities. We also examined ACGME Program Information Form responses on PBLI core competency questions surrounding QI projects for program sites visited in 2008–2009. Data were integrated by a multidisciplinary committee to develop a peer-protected PBLI template guiding programs through process, documentation, and evaluation of QI projects. All steps were reviewed and approved through our GME Committee structure.
Results
An electronic template, companion checklist, and evaluation form were developed using identified project characteristics to guide programs through the PBLI process and facilitate documentation and evaluation of the process. During a 24 month period, 27 programs have completed PBLI projects, and 15 have reviewed the template with their education committees, but have not initiated projects using the template.
Discussion
The development of the tool generated program leaders' support because the tool enhanced the ability to meet program-specific objectives. The peer-protected status of this document for confidentiality and from discovery has been beneficial for program usage. The document aggregates data on PBLI and QI initiatives, offers opportunities to increase scholarship in QI, and meets the ACGME goal of linking measures to outcomes important to meeting accreditation requirements at the program and institutional level.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00195.1
PMCID: PMC3399615  PMID: 23730444
5.  Educational Experiences Residents Perceive As Most Helpful for the Acquisition of the ACGME Competencies 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires physicians in training to be educated in 6 competencies considered important for independent medical practice. There is little information about the experiences that residents feel contribute most to the acquisition of the competencies.
Objective
To understand how residents perceive their learning of the ACGME competencies and to determine which educational activities were most helpful in acquiring these competencies.
Method
A web-based survey created by the graduate medical education office for institutional program monitoring and evaluation was sent to all residents in ACGME-accredited programs at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, from 2007 to 2010. Residents responded to questions about the adequacy of their learning for each of the 6 competencies and which learning activities were most helpful in competency acquisition.
Results
We analyzed 1378 responses collected from postgraduate year-1 (PGY-1) to PGY-3 residents in 12 different residency programs, surveyed between 2007 and 2010. The overall response rate varied by year (66%–82%). Most residents (80%–97%) stated that their learning of the 6 ACGME competencies was “adequate.” Patient care activities and observation of attending physicians and peers were listed as the 2 most helpful learning activities for acquiring the 6 competencies.
Conclusion
Our findings reinforce the importance of learning from role models during patient care activities and the heterogeneity of learning activities needed for acquiring all 6 competencies.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00058.1
PMCID: PMC3399609  PMID: 23730438
6.  Assessing Intern Core Competencies With an Objective Structured Clinical Examination 
Background
Residents are evaluated using Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core competencies. An Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a potential evaluation tool to measure these competencies and provide outcome data.
Objective
Create an OSCE to evaluate and demonstrate improvement in intern core competencies of patient care, medical knowledge, practice-based learning and improvement, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, and systems-based practice before and after internship.
Methods
From 2006 to 2008, 106 interns from 10 medical specialties were evaluated with a preinternship and postinternship OSCE at Madigan Army Medical Center. The OSCE included eight 12-minute stations that collectively evaluated the 6 ACGME core competencies using human patient simulators, standardized patients, and clinical scenarios. Interns were scored using objective and subjective criteria, with a maximum score of 100 for each competency. Stations included death notification, abdominal pain, transfusion consent, suture skills, wellness history, chest pain, altered mental status, and computer literature search. These stations were chosen by specialty program directors, created with input from board-certified specialists, and were peer reviewed.
Results
All OSCE testing on the 106 interns (ages 25 to 44 [average, 28.6]; 70 [66%] men; 65 [58%] allopathic medical school graduates) resulted in statistically significant improvement in all ACGME core competencies: patient care (71.9% to 80.0%, P < .001), medical knowledge (59.6% to 78.6%, P < .001), practice-based learning and improvement (45.2% to 63.0%, P < .001), interpersonal and communication skills (77.5% to 83.1%, P < .001), professionalism (74.8% to 85.1%, P < .001), and systems-based practice (56.6% to 76.5%, P < .001).
Conclusion
An OSCE during internship can evaluate incoming baseline ACGME core competencies and test for interval improvement. The OSCE is a valuable assessment tool to provide outcome measures on resident competency performance and evaluate program effectiveness.
doi:10.4300/01.01.0006
PMCID: PMC2931201  PMID: 21975704
7.  Incorporating Evidence-based Medicine into Resident Education: A CORD Survey of Faculty and Resident Expectations 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) invokes evidence-based medicine (EBM) principles through the practice-based learning core competency. The authors hypothesized that among a representative sample of emergency medicine (EM) residency programs, a wide variability in EBM resident training priorities, faculty expertise expectations, and curricula exists.
Objectives
The primary objective was to obtain descriptive data regarding EBM practices and expectations from EM physician educators. Our secondary objective was to assess differences in EBM educational priorities among journal club directors compared with non–journal club directors.
Methods
A 19-question survey was developed by a group of recognized EBM curriculum innovators and then disseminated to Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) conference participants, assessing their opinions regarding essential EBM skill sets and EBM curricular expectations for residents and faculty at their home institutions. The survey instrument also identified the degree of interest respondents had in receiving a free monthly EBM journal club curriculum.
Results
A total of 157 individuals registered for the conference, and 98 completed the survey. Seventy-seven (77% of respondents) were either residency program directors or assistant / associate program directors. The majority of participants were from university-based programs and in practice at least 5 years. Respondents reported the ability to identify flawed research (45%), apply research findings to patient care (43%), and comprehend research methodology (33%) as the most important resident skill sets. The majority of respondents reported no formal journal club or EBM curricula (75%) and do not utilize structured critical appraisal instruments (71%) when reviewing the literature. While journal club directors believed that resident learners’ most important EBM skill is to identify secondary peer-reviewed resources, non–journal club directors identified residents’ ability to distinguish significantly flawed research as the key skill to develop. Interest in receiving a free monthly EBM journal club curriculum was widely accepted (89%).
Conclusions
Attaining EBM proficiency is an expected outcome of graduate medical education (GME) training, although the specific domains of anticipated expertise differ between faculty and residents. Few respondents currently use a formalized curriculum to guide the development of EBM skill sets. There appears to be a high level of interest in obtaining EBM journal club educational content in a structured format. Measuring the effects of providing journal club curriculum content in conjunction with other EBM interventions may warrant further investigation.
doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00889.x
PMCID: PMC3219923  PMID: 21199085
evidence-based medicine; knowledge translation; faculty development
8.  Duty Hour Recommendations and Implications for Meeting the ACGME Core Competencies: Views of Residency Directors 
Mayo Clinic Proceedings  2011;86(3):185-191.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the views of residency program directors regarding the effect of the 2010 duty hour recommendations on the 6 core competencies of graduate medical education.
METHODS: US residency program directors in internal medicine, pediatrics, and general surgery were e-mailed a survey from July 8 through July 20, 2010, after the 2010 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty hour recommendations were published. Directors were asked to rate the implications of the new recommendations for the 6 ACGME core competencies as well as for continuity of inpatient care and resident fatigue.
RESULTS: Of 719 eligible program directors, 464 (65%) responded. Most program directors believe that the new ACGME recommendations will decrease residents' continuity with hospitalized patients (404/464 [87%]) and will not change (303/464 [65%]) or will increase (26/464 [6%]) resident fatigue. Additionally, most program directors (249-363/464 [53%-78%]) believe that the new duty hour restrictions will decrease residents' ability to develop competency in 5 of the 6 core areas. Surgery directors were more likely than internal medicine directors to believe that the ACGME recommendations will decrease residents' competency in patient care (odds ratio [OR], 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-6.3), medical knowledge (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.2), practice-based learning and improvement (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.7-4.4), interpersonal and communication skills (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0), and professionalism (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0).
CONCLUSION: Residency program directors' reactions to ACGME duty hour recommendations demonstrate a marked degree of concern about educating a competent generation of future physicians in the face of increasing duty hour standards and regulation.
The reactions of residency program directors to the ACGME duty hour recommendations demonstrate a marked degree of concern about educating a competent generation of future physicians in the face of increasing duty hour standards and regulation.
doi:10.4065/mcp.2010.0635
PMCID: PMC3046937  PMID: 21307391
9.  Evaluating Practice-Based Learning and Improvement: Efforts to Improve Acceptance of Portfolios 
Introduction
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) recommends resident portfolios as 1 method for assessing competence in practice-based learning and improvement. In July 2005, when anesthesiology residents in our department were required to start a portfolio, the residents and their faculty advisors did not readily accept this new requirement. Intensive education efforts addressing the goals and importance of portfolios were undertaken. We hypothesized that these educational efforts improved acceptance of the portfolio and retrospectively audited the portfolio evaluation forms completed by faculty advisors.
Methods
Intensive education about the goals and importance of portfolios began in January 2006, including presentations at departmental conferences and one-on-one education sessions. Faculty advisors were instructed to evaluate each resident's portfolio and complete a review form. We retrospectively collected data to determine the percentage of review forms completed by faculty. The portfolio reviews also assessed the percentage of 10 required portfolio components residents had completed.
Results
Portfolio review forms were completed by faculty advisors for 13% (5/38) of residents during the first advisor-advisee meeting in December 2005. Initiation of intensive education efforts significantly improved compliance, with review forms completed for 68% (26/38) of residents in May 2006 (P < .0001) and 95% (36/38) in December 2006 (P < .0001). Residents also significantly improved the completeness of portfolios between May and December of 2006.
Discussion
Portfolios are considered a best methods technique by the ACGME for evaluation of practice-based learning and improvment. We have found that intensive education about the goals and importance of portfolios can enhance acceptance of this evaluation tool, resulting in improved compliance in completion and evaluation of portfolios.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-10-00010.1
PMCID: PMC3010953  PMID: 22132291
10.  Improvement of workflow and processes to ease and enrich meaningful use of health information technology 
The introduction of health information technology (HIT) can have unexpected and unintended patient safety and/or quality consequences. This highly desirable but complex intervention requires workflow changes in order to be effective. Workflow is often cited by providers as the number one ‘pain point’. Its redesign needs to be tailored to the organizational context, current workflow, HIT system being introduced, and the resources available. Primary care practices lack the required expertise and need external assistance. Unfortunately, the current methods of using esoteric charts or software are alien to health care workers and are, therefore, perceived to be barriers. Most importantly and ironically, these do not readily educate or enable staff to inculcate a common vision, ownership, and empowerment among all stakeholders. These attributes are necessary for creating highly reliable organizations. We present a tool that addresses US Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical (ACGME) competency requirements. Of the six competencies called for by the ACGME, the two that this tool particularly addresses are ‘system-based practice’ and ‘practice-based learning and continuing improvement’. This toolkit is founded on a systems engineering approach. It includes a motivational and orientation presentation, 128 magnetic pictorial and write-erase icons of 40 designs, dry-erase magnetic board, and five visual aids for reducing cognitive and emotive biases in staff. Pilot tests were carried out in practices in Western New York and Colorado, USA. In addition, the toolkit was presented at the 2011 North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) meeting and an Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) meeting in 2013 to solicit responses from attendees. It was also presented to the officers of the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) for HIT. All qualitative feedback was extremely positive and enthusiastic. The respondents recommended that the toolkit be disseminated widely to improve staff education and training, leading to practice improvements.
Video abstract
doi:10.2147/AMEP.S53307
PMCID: PMC3826941  PMID: 24235855
education; health; practice; quality; reliability; safety
11.  Impact of 2011 Resident Duty Hour Requirements on Neurology Residency Programs and Departments 
The Neurohospitalist  2014;4(3):119-126.
Objective:
In 2011, the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) redefined resident duty hour requirements by reducing in-hospital duty hour requirements for residents in an effort to improve patient care, resident well-being, and resident education. We sought to determine the cost of adoption based on changes made by neurology residency programs and departments due to these requirements.
Methods:
We surveyed department chairs or residency program directors at 123 ACGME-accredited US adult neurology training programs on programmatic changes and resident expansion, hiring practices, and development of new computer-based resources in direct response to the 2011 ACGME duty hour requirements. Using data from publicly available resources, we estimated respondents’ financial cost of adoption.
Results:
In all, 63 responded (51% response rate); 76% were program directors. The most common changes implemented by programs were adding night float systems (n = 31; 49%) and increasing faculty responsibility (n = 26; 41%). In direct response to the requirements, 21 programs applied to ACGME for 40 additional residents, 29 of which were fully covered by institutional funds. In direct response to the requirements, nearly half of the departments (n = 26) hired individuals for a total of 80 hires (or 64 full-time equivalents), most commonly mid-level practitioners. The total estimated cost to responding departments was US $12.7 million or US $201,000 per department annually. When projecting expenses of planned changes for the following year, costs increased to US $360,000 per department, with 5-year costs exceeding US $1 million.
Conclusions:
The most recent restriction on resident duty hours comes at substantial cost to neurology departments and residency programs.
doi:10.1177/1941874413518640
PMCID: PMC4056414  PMID: 24982715
education; training; academic; quality; safety; costs
12.  Residency Programs' Evaluations of the Competencies: Data Provided to the ACGME About Types of Assessments Used by Programs 
Background
In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Outcome Project began to focus on resident performance in the 6 competencies of patient care, medical knowledge, professionalism, practice-based learning and improvement, interpersonal communication skills, and professionalism. Beginning in 2007, the ACGME began collecting information on how programs assess these competencies. This report provides information on the nature and extent of those assessments.
Methods
Using data collected by the ACGME for site visits, we use descriptive statistics and percentages to describe the number and type of methods and assessors accredited programs (n  =  4417) report using to assess the competencies. Observed differences among specialties, methodologies, and assessors are tested with analysis of variance procedures.
Results
Almost all (>97%) of programs report assessing all of the competencies and using multiple methods and multiple assessors. Similar assessment methods and evaluator types were consistently used across the 6 competencies. However, there were some differences in the use of patient and family as assessors: Primary care and ambulatory specialties used these to a greater extent than other specialties.
Conclusion
Residency programs are emphasizing the competencies in their evaluation of residents. Understanding the scope of evaluation methodologies that programs use in resident assessment is important for both the profession and the public, so that together we may monitor continuing improvement in US graduate medical education.
doi:10.4300/JGME-02-04-30
PMCID: PMC3010956  PMID: 22132294
13.  Internal Reviews Benefit Programs of the Review Team Members and the Program Under Review 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandates that sponsoring institutions conduct internal reviews. In 1998, the ACGME Institutional Review Committee gave Duke University Hospital a citation for an inadequate internal review (IR) process. Since then, we have instituted several iterative changes. We describe the evolution of Duke University Hospital's current internal review process.
Intervention
We implemented a new review team composition, template report, use of the program information form, and centralization of documentation to improve our internal review process. In 2007, a more formal evaluation of the outcome and impact of these changes was instituted. This included a yearly survey of all participants and review team members, a review of programs, and a tracking process for the decisions of our Graduate Medical Education Committee (GMEC) on the status of reviewed programs.
Results
Participants from both the program under review and the review team evaluated the process favorably. Review teams reported they learned from the best practices of the program being reviewed. Program directors from the reviewed programs reported the process improved their documentation. Both groups reported the process better prepared them for their next ACGME Review Committee site visit. The GMEC has recommended “probationary sponsorship” for fewer programs since the IR process changes have been implemented. The IR process was recognized as a best practice in Duke University Hospital's 2004 ACGME institutional review.
Conclusion
We believe our IR process, review-team composition, template report, program information form, and centralized documentation now fully meets accreditation standards. Participants are reasonably satisfied and report value from the process. More programs are judged to be within substantial compliance by the GMEC.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-10-00063.1
PMCID: PMC3010948  PMID: 22132286
14.  Insights about the process and impact of implementing nursing guidelines on delivery of care in hospitals and community settings 
Background
Little is known about the impact of implementing nursing-oriented best practice guidelines on the delivery of patient care in either hospital or community settings.
Methods
A naturalistic study with a prospective, before and after design documented the implementation of six newly developed nursing best practice guidelines (asthma, breastfeeding, delirium-dementia-depression (DDD), foot complications in diabetes, smoking cessation and venous leg ulcers). Eleven health care organisations were selected for a one-year project. At each site, clinical resource nurses (CRNs) worked with managers and a multidisciplinary steering committee to conduct an environmental scan and develop an action plan of activities (i.e. education sessions, policy review). Process and patient outcomes were assessed by chart audit (n = 681 pre-implementation, 592 post-implementation). Outcomes were also assessed for four of six topics by in-hospital/home interviews (n = 261 pre-implementation, 232 post-implementation) and follow-up telephone interviews (n = 152 pre, 121 post). Interviews were conducted with 83/95 (87%) CRN's, nurses and administrators to describe recommendations selected, strategies used and participants' perceived facilitators and barriers to guideline implementation.
Results
While statistically significant improvements in 5% to 83% of indicators were observed in each organization, more than 80% of indicators for breastfeeding, DDD and smoking cessation did not change. Statistically significant improvements were found in > 50% of indicators for asthma (52%), diabetes foot care (83%) and venous leg ulcers (60%). Organizations with > 50% improvements reported two unique implementation strategies which included hands-on skill practice sessions for nurses and the development of new patient education materials. Key facilitators for all organizations included education sessions as well as support from champions and managers while key barriers were lack of time, workload pressure and staff resistance.
Conclusion
Implementation of nursing best practice guidelines can result in improved practice and patient outcomes across diverse settings yet many indicators remained unchanged. Mobilization of the nursing workforce to actively implement guidelines and to monitor the delivery of their care is important so that patients may learn about and receive recommended healthcare.
doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-29
PMCID: PMC2279128  PMID: 18241349
15.  Pediatric Emergency Medicine Residency Experience: Requirements Versus Reality 
Background
An important expectation of pediatric education is assessing, resuscitating, and stabilizing ill or injured children.
Objective
To determine whether the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) minimum time requirement for emergency and acute illness experience is adequate to achieve the educational objectives set forth for categorical pediatric residents. We hypothesized that despite residents working five 1-month block rotations in a high-volume (95 000 pediatric visits per year) pediatric emergency department (ED), the comprehensive experience outlined by the ACGME would not be satisfied through clinical exposure.
Study Design
This was a retrospective, descriptive study comparing actual resident experience to the standard defined by the ACGME. The emergency medicine experience of 35 categorical pediatric residents was tracked including number of patients evaluated during training and patient discharge diagnoses. The achievability of the ACGME requirement was determined by reporting the percentage of pediatric residents that cared for at least 1 patient from each of the ACGME-required disorder categories.
Results
A total of 11.4% of residents met the ACGME requirement for emergency and acute illness experience in the ED. The median number of patients evaluated by residents during training in the ED was 941. Disorder categories evaluated least frequently included shock, sepsis, diabetic ketoacidosis, coma/altered mental status, cardiopulmonary arrest, burns, and bowel obstruction.
Conclusion
Pediatric residents working in one of the busiest pediatric EDs in the country and working 1 month more than the ACGME-recommended minimum did not achieve the ACGME requirement for emergency and acute illness experience through direct patient care.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-10-00106.1
PMCID: PMC3010942  PMID: 22132280
16.  Board review course effect on resident in-training examination 
Background
The in-training examination is a national and yearly exam administered by the American Board of Emergency Medicine to all emergency medicine residents in the USA. The purpose of the examination is to evaluate a resident’s progress toward obtaining the fundamental knowledge to practice independent emergency medicine.
Aims
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of a 40 hour board review lecture course on the resident in-training examination in emergency medicine.
Methods
A 40 hour board review lecture course was designed and implemented during the weekly 5 hour long resident conferences during the 8 weeks preceding the in-training examination date in 2006. Attendance was mandatory at the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) standard of 70% or greater. A positive result was considered to be a 10% increase or greater in the resident’s individual national class percentile ranking among their national peers for their class year for the emergency medicine in-training examination. A resident was excluded from the study if there was no 2005 in-training examination score for self-comparison. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to analyze the results.
Results
Of 16 residents, 1 (6.25%; 95% CI: 0–18%) showed a positive result of increasing their national class percentile ranking by 10% or greater. For the PGY2, one of the eight had a positive result (12.5%; 95% CI: 0–35.4%). For PGY3, no resident (0%; 95% CI: 0–35.4%) had a positive result.
Conclusions
A 40 hour board review lecture course has no positive effect on improving a resident’s in-training examination score.
doi:10.1007/s12245-008-0068-5
PMCID: PMC2657258  PMID: 19384650
In-training examination; Board review; Emergency medicine resident
17.  Practice-Based Learning and Improvement for Institutions: A Case Report 
Background
In 2006, the University of Virginia became one of the first academic medical institutions to be placed on probation, after the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Institutional Review Committee implemented a new classification system for institutional reviews.
Intervention
After University of Virginia reviewed its practices and implemented needed changes, the institution was able to have probation removed and full accreditation restored. Whereas graduate medical education committees and designated institutional officials are required to conduct internal reviews of each ACGME–accredited program midway through its accreditation cycle, no similar requirement exists for institutions.
Learning
As we designed corrective measures at the University of Virginia, we realized that regularly scheduled audits of the entire institution would have prevented the accumulation of deficiencies. We suggest that institutional internal reviews be implemented to ensure that the ACGME institutional requirements for graduate medical education are met. This process represents practice-based learning and improvement at the institutional level and may prevent other institutions from receiving unfavorable accreditation decisions.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-10-00071.1
PMCID: PMC3010952  PMID: 22132290
18.  A Thematic Review of Resident Commentary on Duty Hours and Supervision Regulations 
Background
The implementation on July 1, 2011, of new Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) standards for resident supervision and duty hours has prompted considerable debate about the potential positive and negative effects of these changes on patient care and resident education. A recent large-sample study analyzed resident responses to these changes, using a Likert scale response. In this same study, 874 residents also provided free-text comments, which provide added insight into resident perspectives on duty hours and supervision.
Methods
A mixed-methods quantitative and qualitative survey of residents was conducted in August 2010 to assess resident perceptions of the proposed ACGME regulations. Common concerns in the residents' free responses were synthesized and quantified using content analysis, a common method for qualitative research.
Results
A total of 11 617 residents received the survey. Completed surveys were received from 2561 residents (22.0%), with 874 residents (34.1%) providing free-text responses. Most residents (83.0%) expressed unfavorable opinions about the new standards. The most frequently cited concerns included coverage issues, and a negative impact on patient care and education, as well as lack of preparation for senior roles. A smaller portion of residents commented they thought the standards would contribute to improvements in quality of life (36.1%) and patient care (4.9%).
Conclusions
ACGME standards are important for graduate medical education, and their aim is to promote high-quality education and better care to patients in teaching institutions. Yet, many residents are concerned about the day-to-day impact of the 2011 regulations, in particular the 16-hour duty period for interns. Most residents who provided free-text responses had a negative impression of the new ACGME regulations. Residents' resistance to duty hour changes may represent a realization that residents are losing a central role in patient care. The concerns identified in this study demonstrate important issues for administrators and policymakers. Resident ideas and opinions should be considered in future revisions of ACGME requirements.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00259.1
PMCID: PMC3546574  PMID: 24294421
19.  Tracking Residents Through Multiple Residency Programs: A Different Approach for Measuring Residents' Rates of Continuing Graduate Medical Education in ACGME-Accredited Programs 
Background
Increased focus on the number and type of physicians delivering health care in the United States necessitates a better understanding of changes in graduate medical education (GME). Data collected by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) allow longitudinal tracking of residents, revealing the number and type of residents who continue GME following completion of an initial residency. We examined trends in the percent of graduates pursuing additional clinical education following graduation from ACGME-accredited pipeline specialty programs (specialties leading to initial board certification).
Methods
Using data collected annually by the ACGME, we tracked residents graduating from ACGME-accredited pipeline specialty programs between academic year (AY) 2002–2003 and AY 2006–2007 and those pursuing additional ACGME-accredited training within 2 years. We examined changes in the number of graduates and the percent of graduates continuing GME by specialty, by type of medical school, and overall.
Results
The number of pipeline specialty graduates increased by 1171 (5.3%) between AY 2002–2003 and AY 2006–2007. During the same period, the number of graduates pursuing additional GME increased by 1059 (16.7%). The overall rate of continuing GME increased each year, from 28.5% (6331/22229) in AY 2002–2003 to 31.6% (7390/23400) in AY 2006–2007. Rates differed by specialty and for US medical school graduates (26.4% [3896/14752] in AY 2002–2003 to 31.6% [4718/14941] in AY 2006–2007) versus international medical graduates (35.2% [2118/6023] to 33.8% [2246/6647]).
Conclusion
The number of graduates and the rate of continuing GME increased from AY 2002–2003 to AY 2006–2007. Our findings show a recent increase in the rate of continued training for US medical school graduates compared to international medical graduates. Our results differ from previously reported rates of subspecialization in the literature. Tracking individual residents through residency and fellowship programs provides a better understanding of residents' pathways to practice.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-10-00105.1
PMCID: PMC3010950  PMID: 22132288
20.  Diabetic foot: prevalence, knowledge, and foot self-care practices among diabetic patients in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania – a cross-sectional study 
Background
At the time of diagnosis, more than 10 % of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus have one or two risk factors for a foot ulceration and a lifetime risk of 15 %. Diabetic foot ulcers can be prevented through well-coordinated foot care services. The objective of this study was to determine knowledge of foot care and reported practice of foot self-care among diabetic patients with the aim of identifying and addressing barriers to preventing amputations among diabetic patients.
Methods
Patients were randomly selected from all public diabetic clinics in Dar es Salaam. A questionnaire containing knowledge and foot care practice questions was administered to all study participants. A detailed foot examination was performed on all patients, with the results categorized according to the International Diabetes Federation foot risk categories. Statistics were performed using SPSS version 14.
Results
Of 404 patients included in this study, 15 % had foot ulcers, 44 % had peripheral neuropathy, and 15 % had peripheral vascular disease. In multivariate analysis, peripheral neuropathy and insulin treatment were significantly associated with presence of foot ulcer. The mean knowledge score was 11.2 ± 6.4 out of a total possible score of 23. Low mean scores were associated with lack of formal education (8.3 ± 6.1), diabetes duration of < 5 years (10.2 ± 6.7) and not receiving advice on foot care (8.0 ± 6.1). Among the 404 patients, 48 % had received advice on foot care, and 27.5 % had their feet examined by a doctor at least once since their initial diagnosis. Foot self-care was significantly higher in patients who had received advice on foot care and in those whose feet had been examined by a doctor at least once.
Conclusions
The prevalence of diabetic foot is high among patients attending public clinics in Dar es Salaam. There is an urgent need to establish coordinated foot care services within the diabetic clinic to identify feet at risk, institute early management, and provide continuous foot care education to patients and health care providers.
doi:10.1186/s13047-015-0080-y
PMCID: PMC4462176  PMID: 26064190
Diabetes; Diabetic foot; Foot care
21.  Treat to Goal: Impact of Clinical Pharmacist Referral Service Primarily in Diabetes Management 
Hospital Pharmacy  2013;48(8):656-661.
Purpose:
To describe the impact of pharmacist services in a collaborative practice providing care to primarily Medicaid and indigent patients. The practice includes primary care physicians, nurses, a care navigator, and pharmacists. Pharmacy services are provided by pharmacists, including PGY-1 pharmacy residents and pharmacy students.
Methods:
A retrospective chart review was conducted to perform a pre-post analysis on all patients referred to pharmacists within an adult medicine clinic. Patients were included if they were more than 18 years old; were referred for type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or medication reconciliation; and were seen from August 2010 to March 2011. All charts were reviewed to assess pharmacist impact on adherence to standards of care including hemoglobin A1c; lipids; blood pressure; vaccination status; usage of aspirin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and statins; and other criteria. Subgroup analysis was performed on diabetic patients who were not at goal at the time of referral to the pharmacy clinic.
Results:
Ninety-three charts were reviewed. In the overall group, rates of influenza and pneumococcal vaccination improved significantly, as did annual foot and eye exams in diabetics. Pharmacists significantly decreased A1c from 9.12% at baseline to 8.13% (P < .001), systolic blood pressure (SBP) from 142.6 to 133.5 mm Hg (P < .001), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) from 143.6 to 103.2 mg/dL (P < .001) in diabetic patients who were not at goal at baseline.
Conclusions:
Pharmacists were effective in improving surrogate outcomes for patients with diabetes and in assisting physicians to address all standards of care.
doi:10.1310/hpj4808-656
PMCID: PMC3847985  PMID: 24421536
diabetes mellitus; hyperlipidemias; pharmacists; pharmaceutical services; standard of care; vaccination
22.  Development, Testing, and Implementation of the ACGME Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) Program 
Since the release of the Institute of Medicine's report on resident hours and patient safety, there have been calls for enhanced institutional oversight of duty hour limits and of efforts to enhance the quality and safety of care in teaching hospitals. The ACGME has established the Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) program as a key component of the Next Accreditation System with the aim to promote safety and quality of care by focusing on 6 areas important to the safety and quality of care in teaching hospitals and the care residents will provide in a lifetime of practice after completion of training. The 6 areas encompass engagement of residents in patient safety, quality improvement and care transitions, promoting appropriate resident supervision, duty hour oversight and fatigue management, and enhancing professionalism.
Over the coming 18 months the ACGME will develop, test, and fully implement this new program by conducting visits to the nearly 400 clinical sites of sponsoring institutions with two or more specialty or subspecialty programs. These site visits will provide an understanding of how the learning environment for the 116 000 current residents and fellows addresses the 6 areas important to safety and quality of care, and will generate baseline data on the status of these activities in accredited institutions. We expect that over time the CLER program will serve as a new source of formative feedback for teaching institutions, and generate national data that will guide performance improvement for United States graduate medical education.
doi:10.4300/JGME-04-03-31
PMCID: PMC3444205  PMID: 23997895
23.  Measuring Resident Physicians' Performance of Preventive Care 
BACKGROUND
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has suggested various methods for evaluation of practice-based learning and improvement competency, but data on implementation of these methods are limited.
OBJECTIVE
To compare medical record review and patient surveys on evaluating physician performance in preventive services in an outpatient resident clinic.
DESIGN
Within an ongoing quality improvement project, we collected baseline performance data on preventive services provided for patients at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Internal Medicine Residents' ambulatory clinic.
PARTICIPANTS
Seventy internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics residents from the UAB Internal Medicine Residency program.
MEASUREMENTS
Resident- and clinic-level comparisons of aggregated patient survey and chart documentation rates of (1) screening for smoking status, (2) advising smokers to quit, (3) cholesterol screening, (4) mammography screening, and (5) pneumonia vaccination.
RESULTS
Six hundred and fifty-nine patient surveys and 761 charts were abstracted. At the clinic level, rates for screening of smoking status, recommending mammogram, and for cholesterol screening were similar (difference <5%) between the 2 methods. Higher rates for pneumonia vaccination (76% vs 67%) and advice to quit smoking (66% vs 52%) were seen on medical record review versus patient surveys. However, within-resident (N=70) comparison of 2 methods of estimating screening rates contained significant variability. The cost of medical record review was substantially higher ($107 vs $17/physician).
CONCLUSIONS
Medical record review and patient surveys provided similar rates for selected preventive health measures at the clinic level, with the exception of pneumonia vaccination and advising to quit smoking. A large variation among individual resident providers was noted.
doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00338.x
PMCID: PMC1828097  PMID: 16499544
education; medical; preventive health services; patient survey; medical record review; cost evaluation
24.  Effectiveness of diabetes resource nurse case management and physician profiling in a fee-for-service setting: a cluster randomized trial 
Nurses with advanced training—diabetes resource nurses (DRNs)—can improve care for people with diabetes in capitated payment settings. Their effectiveness in fee-for-service settings has not been investigated. We conducted a 12-month practice-randomized trial involving 22 practices in a fee-for-service metropolitan network with 92 primary care physicians caring for 1891 Medicare patients ≥65 years with diabetes mellitus. Each practice was randomized to one of three intervention groups: physician feedback on process measures using Medicare claims data; Medicare claims feedback plus feedback on clinical measures from medical record (MR) abstraction; or both types of feedback plus a practice-based DRN. The primary endpoint investigated was hemoglobin A1c level. Other measures were low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, blood pressure, annual hemoglobin A1c testing, annual LDL screening, annual eye exam, annual foot exam, and annual renal assessment. Data were collected from medical chart abstraction and Medicare claims. The number of patients with hemoglobin A1c <9% increased by 4 (0.9%) in the Claims group; 9 (2.1%) in the Claims + MR group (comparison with Claims: P = 0.97); and 16 (3.8%) in the DRN group (comparison with Claims: P = 0.31). Results were similar for the other clinical outcomes, with no differences significant at P = 0.10. For process of care measures, decreases were seen in all groups, with no significant differences in change scores. Quality improvement strategies must be evaluated in the appropriate setting. Initiatives that have been effective in capitated systems may not be effective in fee-for-service environments.
PMCID: PMC1426180  PMID: 16609732
25.  Charting the Road to Competence: Developmental Milestones for Internal Medicine Residency Training 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Outcome Project requires that residency program directors objectively document that their residents achieve competence in 6 general dimensions of practice.
Intervention
In November 2007, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and the ACGME initiated the development of milestones for internal medicine residency training. ABIM and ACGME convened a 33-member milestones task force made up of program directors, experts in evaluation and quality, and representatives of internal medicine stakeholder organizations. This article reports on the development process and the resulting list of proposed milestones for each ACGME competency.
Outcomes
The task force adopted the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition as a framework the internal medicine milestones, and calibrated the milestones with the expectation that residents achieve, at a minimum, the “competency” level in the 5-step progression by the completion of residency. The task force also developed general recommendations for strategies to evaluate the milestones.
Discussion
The milestones resulting from this effort will promote competency-based resident education in internal medicine, and will allow program directors to track the progress of residents and inform decisions regarding promotion and readiness for independent practice. In addition, the milestones may guide curriculum development, suggest specific assessment strategies, provide benchmarks for resident self-directed assessment-seeking, and assist remediation by facilitating identification of specific deficits. Finally, by making explicit the profession's expectations for graduates and providing a degree of national standardization in evaluation, the milestones may improve public accountability for residency training.
doi:10.4300/01.01.0003
PMCID: PMC2931179  PMID: 21975701

Results 1-25 (925605)