#AAMC13 #BeyondFlexner: Tweeting Back to the Future

5 11 2013

I am just returning from AAMC 13 in Philadelphia, which happens to be the site of the very first AAMC conference in 1876.  Perhaps it is this historic backdrop which made it more poignant when AAMC President and CEO Dr. Darrell Kirch charged the audience to rise to the occasion during our most challenging time, or our healthcare system’s “moment of truth.”  Between sessions on how academic health centers needed to evolve to survive healthcare reform and how medical students need to avoid the “jaws of death” from the Match, there was certainly much to fear and much to learn. In spite of this, there are always moments where it was undeniable that the future was bright.  But, the most interesting moments at this meeting where when it felt like we were going back to the future.

One of those moments was sitting in on the CLER (Clinical Learning Environment Review), or the new ACGME institutional site visit process which is not meant to be scary, but helpful!  As a non-punitive visit, its meant to catalyze the necessary changes needed to help improve the learning climate in teaching hospitals. This session was particularly salient for me as I transitioned from being an Associate Program Director into role of Director for GME Clinical Learning Environment Innovation about a month ago.  At one point, Dr. Kevin Weiss described the CLER site visitors observing a handoff- and in that one moment, they saw the resident bashing the ER, failure of supervision, the medical students left out, and an opportunity to report a near miss that was ignored.  Even though CLER is new, he made it sound like the site visitors were going back in time and nothing had changed.  Have we not made a dent in any of these areas?  I guess it’s probably safest to pretend like its 2003 and we need a lot more training in quality, safety, handoffs, supervision, fatigue, and everyone’s favorite…professionalism.

After being the only tweeter at times in the Group of Resident Affairs sessions, I ventured into the tweeting epicenter of the meeting at the digital literacy session.  There, I not only learned about a very cool digital literacy toolkit for educators, but also got to connect with some awesome social media mavens who use technology to advance medical education. While I have access to these technophiles through Twitter (you know who you are), it was NOT the same as talking about the future of social media and medical education face-to-face.  Call me old-fashioned, but connecting with this group over a meal was just what this doctor ordered.  My only wish is that we had more time together…

Lastly, we went back to the future in our session showcasing the winners of the Teaching Value and Choosing Wisely Competition at both the AAMC and ABIM Foundation meeting last week.   One of the recurring themes that keeps emerging in these sessions, in addition to a recent #meded tweet chat, is that the death of clinical skills (history taking and physical exam) promotes overuse and reliance on tests in teaching hospitals.  Could it be that by reinvigorating these bedrock clinical skills and bringing back the “master clinician”, we could liberate our patients from unnecessary and wasteful tests?  I certainly hope so…and it can’t hurt to be a better doctor.  Moreover, one of the most powerful tools that was mentioned was the time-honored case report!  In fact, case reports have been resurrected to highlight avoidable care in a new JAMA Internal Medicine series called “Teachable Moments.”

And lastly, in the spirit of going back to the bedside, our MERITS (medical education fellowship team) submitted a video entry to the Beyond Flexner competition on what medical education would be like in 2033.  While the impressive winners are showcased here,  our nostalgic entry was aptly titled Back to the Future and Back to the Bedside, and envisioned a future where all students, regardless of their year, are doing what they came to medical school to do, see patients.

–Vineet Arora MD





From Astronauts to Attendings: Workload, Duty Hours and July, Oh My!

31 07 2013

reposted from Academic Medicine’s blog

Every July, as academic hospitals welcome new interns, a flurry of activity ensues. While learning to care for patients and navigating the complex social territories of their new hospitals, interns also are worrying about “getting out on time” and making sure not to “dump” on their colleagues. This work compression, particularly among interns who are not familiar with the day-to-day operations of wards, can strain the learning environment. With the implementation of resident duty hours regulations, attending physicians are subsequently called to provide more direct patient care. Yet residency is a time for learning on the job, and part of that learning comes from the teaching attendings provide. In our recent study in Academic Medicine, we asked: “So what has happened to time for teaching?”

Given the recent changes in academic medicine, attendings’ workload needs to be examined, especially regarding their role as teachers. Previously, most studies of workload and work compression focused on residents. Moreover, these studies commonly focused on workload as it related to patient census. While patient census is one measure of workload, we all have had the experience of how one very complicated patient can add up to more work than 10 relatively straightforward patients. So, should we instead consider perception of workload rather than actual workload measured by volume?

Borrowing from methods developed at NASA to examine astronauts’ workload, we examined attendings’ perceptions of workload and the relationship of those perceptions to reporting enough time for teaching. In doing so, we found a steep relationship between attendings’ greater perceived workload and time for teaching. Additionally, we analyzed our results with respect to the time of year and to the implementation of duty hours regulations. Implementing duty hours regulations, not unexpectedly, reduced attendings’ time for teaching, but the magnitude of this reduction was humbling.  What was most surprising, however, relates to the time of year, specifically summer, which everyone fears because of the “July effect”.  Interestingly, more teaching occurs during summer than during winter and spring. We also found that attendings’ greater workload during winter and spring was more detrimental to their time for teaching than their workload during summer.

Certainly, having attendings provide more direct care when residents have heavy workloads improves patient safety. However, the cost to residents’ education and subsequent learning and growth is not trivial. Ensuring that teaching on the wards is restored should be a central focus of graduate medical education reform.  Moreover, while winter and spring should be times for continued teaching on advanced topics to ensure professional growth towards achieving competence, for some reason, we fall short. Meanwhile, during summer, attendings may cut back on their own busy clinical practice and/or administrative duties in anticipation of their role as teachers and supervisors. Regardless of the reason, to prepare for future changes to the accreditation system and attendings’ role in documenting progression through milestones, testing and implementing innovative ways of re-balancing workload to restore teaching and learning on the wards is imperative.

–Lisa Roshetsky MD MS and Vineet Arora MD MAPP 





From Curricula to Crowdsourcing: Trainees Taking Charge to Teach Value

6 06 2013

As part of this week’s Association of American Medical Colleges Integrating Quality (IQ) meeting, we are featuring a post that originally appeared at Wing of Zock about trainees efforts to teach value.

Medical education’s efforts to incorporate the teaching of value-based care into formalized curricula have been remarkably few and fraught with challenges. More than 60% of med school grads feel they get inadequate instruction in medical economics, a figure that hasn’t budged in more than five years. At the same time, residents are subjected to the insidious influence of a “Hidden Curriculum” that seems to shun conservation in favor of consumption. The result is predictable: we are churning out providers that feel neither prepared nor compelled to allocate clinical resources more sustainably.

It’s not uncommon for trainees to contemplate the cost of a test or treatment. But that thought rarely ends up being more than a fleeting curiosity. Whilst juggling an exponentially increasing body of data and evidence, consensus-based guidelines, attending preferences and the increasing complexity of patients, the thought of adding another variable to our calculus seems daunting.

The common refrain is we don’t have enough information to make value-based judgments. Discussion of cost-effectiveness among trainees usually centers on price transparency, or rather, a lack thereof.  Survey the workroom of an academic hospital and you’ll get five different estimates for the cost of a CT scan. The monumental price tag of some items is even the source of folk-lore among residents: “Did you know that stress test costs $5,000?!” Adding to the myth’s power is the fact that prior to the recent decision by Health and Human Services to release hospital chargemasters, these documents have been treated like trade secrets. And even if an enterprising resident were able to obtain the classified dossier, the listed charge would bear no relation to the price the patient eventually pays.

But clinical malaise and the abstruse nature of hospital pricing should not prevent us from grappling with the excess and overuse typical of most training environments. As tertiary referral centers, teaching hospitals attract a subset of patients seeking an exhaustive work-up or more aggressive care from thought leaders – our mentors – in subspecialty fields.  Accordingly, these mentors are more likely to ask, “Why didn’t you order test X?” ratber than, “Why did you order test X, and what are you going to do with the information?” . A superfluous test is a “good thought.” A step-wise evaluation is often “expedited” with a single round of testing. An outside work-up is repeated to have “all the data in-house.”  These behaviors are then reinforced by our conferences, which focus on extensive diagnostic evaluations of rare diseases.

At its core, this is an issue of culture and our unbridled pursuit of clinical excellence. Trainees can and should help refashion this culture to achieve better value for patients. Student activism has heavily influenced the practices of today’s medical schools and residency programs, perhaps best evidenced by the American Medical Student Association’s PharmFree Campaign. The success of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in spreading the principles of quality improvement (QI) can be attributed in part to the enthusiasm of trainees, empowered by the Open School to create and champion their own curricula. At a microsystem level, residents might incorporate value into QI projects and institutional research or lobby at an administrative level for increased information about the costs of their practice. As individuals, we can leverage our greater familiarity with new media and technology to promote resources such as Choosing Wisely, Healthcare Bluebook, and Consumer Reports Best Buy Drugs.

There are promising signs that current physicians-in-training are committed to championing the principles of resource stewardship. Costs of Care, a 501c3 non-profit social venture founded by trainees, has used crowdsourcing to engage both patients and physicians in the discussion of value-based care. More than 300 real patient and physician stories illustrating opportunities to provide high value care have materialized from their widely publicized annual essay contest. More formalized curricula in cost awareness at UCSF and UPenn originated from the work of residents. As a medical student, I was fortunate to be a part of a team that created a web-based curriculum in overuse.

There are undoubtedly other examples of “conservationists” in training out there. We want to meet you! We will be presenting our work at the upcoming AAMC IQ conference on June 6th. Come to Chicago, tell us about your project, be it a completed program or just a fresh idea. Or you can find us online at http://teachingvalue.org/competition.

–Andy Levy MD & Chris Moriates MD

(members of the Teaching Value Team)








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 16,195 other followers

%d bloggers like this: