What’s NEXT in Residency Training: Fighting off the Tick Box Zombies

11 06 2012

This weekend, an interesting article on the curent state of UK residency training crossed my Twitter feed.   Due to restricted residency duty hours in the UK (yes they have a 48 hour work week for residents aka junior doctors), they fear they are graduating “incompetent doctors who are putting patients at risk.”

This debate is not just isolated to the other side of the Pond.  In fact, a recent reports in the New England Journal of Medicine documented that nearly half of residents are OPPOSED to restricted resident duty hours, with another paper in Academic Medicine showing that many internal medicine residents were concerned about limited educational opportunities with duty hours.  Finally, in a recent study that we did with the Association of Program Directors of Internal Medicine and the Association of Program Directors of Surgery published in Academic Medicine, program directors feared specific consequences of duty hours related to faculty morale, patient continuity and resident education.

While I could go on, the reason I started to write this post was NOT to rehash the duty hours debate!  Instead, I wanted to highlight a very specific concern that is mentioned in this UK story.  One of the chief complaints in the UK medical training system is that junior doctors were being passed on the basis of dreaded ‘tick-box forms’.  (You gotta love the Brits for colorful names to what we simply call evaluations).

So now at this point, I feel like I am watching 28 Days Later, where all of London was quarantined and zombies took over.   Will the Tick Box zombies come to the United States and take over our GME system?  Have they already?  I hope not…but let’s face it.  Everyone is wondering what comes NEXT with milestones and GME.

The “Next Accreditation System” or NAS (not to be confused with the rap artist) is about documenting the achievement of specific milestones related to specific “entrustable professional activity” or EPA.  An EPA is “simply the routine professional-life activities of physicians based on their specialty and subspecialty.”  For example, for internal medicine, one of the end of year EPAs is “Manage the care of patients on general internal medicine inpatient ward.”  In this way, EPAs are more granular than the 6 “core competencies” and should in theory be easier to observe and evaluate.  Lastly, for each EPA, there will be a “narrative” that programs can select to describe how competent the resident is in that area.

While program directors and others involved in GME are all learning the new “compet-english” that has been developed, many are also concerned about the burden of evaluation in a system that is already overburdened.  In other words, will the Tick Box zombies attack us stateside?   Well, some of this is up to how the residency educator community responds to the charge.  To prevent tick box zombie attack, program directors must resist the urge to create hundreds of milestone evaluations and add them to existing evaluations.   The key is not to reinvent the wheel but to modify existing evaluations to link them to milestones and EPAs. In some cases, old evaluations that were not helpful should be re-evaluated to see if they are necessary.  Moreover, to prevent tick box zombies from striking, it’s important to design and implement ‘good’ measures of resident performance.  A good measure would adhere to some of the same properties of optimal National Quality Forum quality measures: reliable, valid, linked to meaningful outcomes, feasible to collect, and distinguish between good and bad performance.  When good measures of residency performance do not always exist, there is an opportunity to work together to figure out what they are.   While this is definitely a work in progress, one nice thing is that no one is alone.  In Chicago, a citywide meeting of residency leaders of over 10 programs was held to share how best to do this and learn from each other.   After all, to truly make our NEXT step in GME, we must all work together to prevent the tick box zombie attack.

Vineet Arora MD  

Special hat tip to @keitharmitage for inspiring this post with his tweet : )





Where are the Lollipop Men in Healthcare?

9 04 2012

I recently watched Dr. Atul Gawande on video describe how what American healthcare needs is pit crews and not cowboys.  This sentiment is also memorialized in his thought-provoking writings for the New Yorker.

Interestingly, Dr. Gawande is not the first person I have heard to suggest such a thing.  A colleague named Dr. Ken Catchpole actually studied Formula 1 pit crews and used the information to guide improvements in pediatric anesthesia handoffs.  His observations were astounding and really highlighted how the culture of medicine is different from Formula 1. In Formula 1, pit crews have a ‘fanatical’ approach to training that relies on repitition.   In healthcare, the first time we often do something is “on the fly”.  Moreover, on-the-job training usually means ‘checking the box’ by attending an annual patient safety lecture.   Perhaps the most important was the role of the “lollipop man” in pit crews.   And yes, even thought it’s a funny name, it’s a critical job.   As shown in the video, the Lollipop man is responsible for signaling and coordinating to the driver the major steps of the pit stop.  When it is safe to step on the gas, the Lollipop man will signal to the driver.  Sounds like a thing so perhaps it can be automated.  Wrong.  When Ferrari tried replacing the Lollipop man with a stop light that signaled the driver, the confusion created (does amber mean stop or go?) led to a driver leaving the pit with his gas still connected.  Quickly after this incident, Ferrari announced it would go back to the tried and trusted Lollipop “hu”man.

So, who are the Lollipop men (or women) in healthcare?  Turns out that Dr. Catchpole and his team observed that it was often unclear who was leading the handoff process that they were observing in healthcare.  With team training and system reengineering, Dr. Catchpole’s team was able to reorganize the pediatric handover so there was a Lollipop man (anesthesiologist) at the helm.

While these handoffs represent a critical element of healthcare communication in a focused area, it is symbolic of a larger problem in healthcare – we are still missing “Lollipop men” to coordinate healthcare for patients across multiple sites and specialties.  This is even more critical on the 2-year anniversary of healthcare reform and this month’s match results. At a time when we need to cultivate and train more “Lollipop men” to coordinate care for patients, we have had stable numbers of students who enter primary care fields.   And like the lessons from the Ferrari team, it is doubtful that a computer (even Watson who is now working in medicine apparently) will be able to do the job of a Lollipop man.

So, how can we recruit more Lollipop men?  While it is tempting to blame the rise or fall of various specialties and market forces, it is important to recognize that being this is a difficult job to do when the Lollipop is broken or even nonexistent.  Without the tools to execute the critical coordination that Lollipop men rely on, they cannot do their job.  So, the first order of business to ensure that the Lollipop, or an infrastructure to coordinate care for patients through their race that is their healthcare journey, exists.  As the Supreme Court debates the future of the Accountable Care Act, there is no greater time to highlight the importance of the Lollipop.

–Vineet Arora MD





Electronic Health Records, Quality & Safety: Pritzker IHI Open School Recap

13 11 2011

computer hardware,doctors,healthcare,males,medicine,men,PCS,people,people at work,persons,physicians,science,stethoscopes,technology,x-raysA classroom at the University of Chicago’s Pritzker School of Medicine was packed earlier this month with both medical students and students in the Graduate Program in Health Administration and Policy (GPHAP) interested in learning more about the IHI and quality improvement.   Dr. Chad Whelan, a hospitalist and institutional leader on quality improvement, facilitated an open discussion about some of the challenges in using electronic health records to improve quality of care and encourage physicians to practice more evidence based medicine.  Some of the topics covered included the unintended consequences of using electronic records, the benefits of an electronic record from an administrative standpoint, and issues surrounding the quality of documentation.  The meeting was organized by students in Pritzker’s Quality and Safety Track with guidance from Laura Botwinick, Director of GPHAP.   During a lively and interactive question and answer session, here are just a few of the questions that were raised by students and the discussion that ensued.

How interoperable are the record systems?  Why aren’t we using one single interoperable system?  While interoperability is a focus of “meaningful use” that is part of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, electronic health records industry is also a marketplace with vendors competing for market share.  Because of that, interoperability may not have been achieved earlier. For larger healthcare systems such as the VA, the implementation of CPRS represents an example of an interoperable system across many hospitals nationwide.   Since academic medical centers often have several teaching hospital affiliates, physicians and trainees have to learn to work in several different systems, some of which may not even talk to each other.  While many urban medical centers have adopted electronic health records, a recent study demonstrated only 17% of hospitals capital investments.

What are the reasons behind the findings in the literature that mortality and errors sometimes increase when an EHR is installed?  Medicine is a complex system and sometimes changing one thing without changing another will yield unexpected outcomes.  Furthermore, if bad processes are automated, errors can happen much more quickly and systematically if they were being made in the first place.  That is why it is important to use QI tools to improve systems before an EHR is laid over them.  For example, during a QI intervention for pressure ulcers, the implementation of EHR for nursing documentation actually led to a decrease in the physician recording of pressure ulcers since they did not know where to access nursing notes.

How much training do practicing physicians get when an EHR is deployed?  Training is definitely part of the EHR implementation strategy.  One commonly used approach is to actively train early adopters who can champion it for the late adapters and laggards. At our hospital, that training included several hours of classroom time PLUS watching online video trainings at home with practice tutorials.  However, as the faculty and others present agreed, the learning curve is steep and learning is an ongoing process.  Anecdotally, there is often “reverse mentoring” with many of the residents who learn on the job are able to teach the attendings tricks of the trade.

What can be done to avoid the cut and paste problems that have emerged?  Interestingly, hospitals often have the choice whether to disable cut and paste or keep it active.  By disabling it however, the ability of EHRs to make doctors more efficient is sacrificed.  However, enabling cut and paste creates the risk that the information is out of date or inaccurate.   While many egregious examples have been described in the literature, there are some novel experiments being tried around the country include trying to use different colors for pasted information or creating patient records like wikis so multiple people are updating.   In a handoff curriculum for residents, we do highlight avoiding CoPaGA syndrome (Copy and Paste Gone Amok) by highlighting that it is allowed to cut and paste but their responsibility is to cut, paste, and update.

Are medical students getting trained on electronic health records?  Most learning at present is orientation to a specific system and on-the-job training.  Principles of effective practice with EHR need to be translated into medical education as it is an important core skill that all medical graduates will need.  While medical informatics is covered by in some form in many medical schools, recent debates highlight that more robust teaching on electronic health records needs to evolve and expand.   Moreover, the EHR can be used to actually advance medical education by providing a record of what types of patients a resident sees and assist in performance evaluation of patient care.

–Anthony Aspesi MS2 (with Laura Botwinick and Vineet Arora)








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 14,117 other followers

%d bloggers like this: