Wisdom of the Crowd: Finding the Most Promising Innovations to Teach Value

16 10 2013

Earlier this year, we launched the Teaching Value and Choosing Wisely Competition in conjunction with Costs of Care and the ABIM Foundation.  Why a competition?   Not surprisingly, traditional “literature review” yielded little by way of promising strategies for educators who wished to learn how to teach about value.  However, we had all learned of isolated stories of success, occasionally through attending professional meetings, sometimes via networking with colleagues, or more often through just plain word of mouth.  To help bring these stories of success to the fore, we relied on a crowdsourcing model by launching a competition to engage a larger community of individuals to tell us their story.  Of course, there were moments we wondered if we would get any submissions.  Fortunately, we did not have anything to worry about!  In June, we received 74 submissions, from 14 specialties with innovations and bright ideas that targeted both medical students, residents, faculty and interprofessional learners.

Reviewing each abstract to determine the most promising practices that could be easily scaled up to other institutions was not an easy task.  One interesting struggle was the inherent tradeoff between feasibility and novelty – what was feasible may not have been so novel, while you were left wondering whether the most innovative abstracts would be feasible to implement.  Fortunately, due to the outstanding expert panel of judges, we were able to narrow the field.  While all the submissions were interesting and worthy in their own right, it was clear that there were some that rose to the top.  For example, while every submission included some level of training, the most promising innovations and bright ideas employed methods beyond traditional training- such as a systems fix using electronic health records, a cultural change through valuing restraint, or oversight or feedback mechanisms to ensure trainees get the information they need to assess their practice at the point-of-care.

Perhaps it is not surprising that several of our winners came from innovations or bright ideas developed by trainees or medical students.  After all, the junior learners are on the sharp end of patient care and in the position to see the simplest and most elegant solutions to promote teaching value. Giffin Daughtridge, a  second year medical student at the University of Pennsylvania proposed linking third year medical students to actual patients to not only review their history, but also their actual medical bill.  As emergency medicine residents at NYU, Michelle Lin and Larissa Laskowski were inspired by Hurricane Sandy to develop an easy to use curricular program for her peers.   At Yale, junior faculty Robert Fogerty instigated a friendly competition among medical students, interns, residents and attending physicians to reach the correct diagnosis with the fewest resources possible during morning report style conferences.

The methods employed to achieve success were equally diverse, ranging from repurposing traditional tools to using new methods altogether.  Building on the traditional clinical vignette, Tanner Caverly and Brandon Combs launched the “Do No Harm Project” at the University of Colorado to collect vignettes about value to learn from. This program also informed the launch of “Teachable Moments” section in JAMA Internal Medicine that is now accepting submissions from trainees.  Meanwhile, Amit Pahwa, Lenny Feldman, and Dan Brotman from Johns Hopkins University proposed individualized dashboards that would make lab and imaging use for each trainee available for feedback and benchmarking against their peers.   And Steven Brown and Cheryl O’Malley at Banner Health proposed a local high-value competition that resulted in more than 40 entries from trainees. Drs. Brown and O’Malley plan to implement the most promising ones.

These are just a few of the innovations and bright ideas that were submitted. You can check out the entire list of innovations and bright ideas on the Teaching Value forum.  Our hope is that this is just the start of developing a network of individuals interested in working together to transform medical education by incorporating principles of stewardship.  So, in this case, we recommend that you follow this crowd.

Vineet Arora, MD MAPP  on behalf of the Teaching Value Team members including Chris Moriates, MD, Andy Levy, MD, and Neel Shah MD MPP 

Join us Thursday October 17th at 9pm EST on Twitter for #meded chat where we will discuss the winning innovations and bright ideas!





Eating Chocolate and other lessons from the ABIM Forum

19 08 2013

Every year, the ABIM Foundation convenes a set of thought leaders on American health care to answer the tough questions.   At first glance, this year’s meeting  had the same standard agenda –  talks and discussions followed by networking and informal activities. However, for some reason, this Forum was more exhausting. Perhaps trying to solve the nation’s vexing problems facing health care is fatiguing! So, what were some of the themes that we came away with?

  • Intrinsic motivation is powerful, so can we create it? We heard about the potential dangers of extrinsic motivation through financial reward. Pay-for-performance, after all, is a tool that is only as good as the system is designed, and many designs have not been very effective. I was reminded of an unusual medical education experiment when they started paying residents in pediatrics on a fee-for-service model (yes, residents). The residents saw more patients, and their outcomes even improved with fewer ER visits! But, closer inspection yielded that these residents stacked their clinics with well child visits, who were healthier and did not need to visit the ER. So fee-for-service residency was abandoned. While everyone agreed it was time to move away from fee-for-service medicine, do we really think a change in the payment system creates intrinsic motivation? One health system offered their solution: recruit those that are intrinsically motivated. But, that still leaves us with how does one become intrinsically motivated? The answer likely lies in the last session of the meeting –find and cultivate joy in work. After all, if the work of transformation is enjoyable, people will do it for free.  And for physicians, joy does not come from lowering the GDP, but from treating the patient in front of you.
  • A series of small innovations add up to a larger one.  There were a series of innovators highlighted at the meeting who shared their innovation. While many were sharing large-scale innovations and initiatives like ACGME’s CLER Program, I shared a much smaller scale innovation, a redesigned resident clinic handoff using ideas generated from talking with over 100 patients about their experience. I certainly recognized the scale I was operating on was much smaller than some of the other folks in the room who lead large health plans or organizations. Then, one of the speakers who transformed their culture highlighted that it was a series of small innovations adding up to the larger one that made it doable. Featuring innovations at this meeting is not new, but the discussion of scalability was important. As each innovation was discussed, the question became how was this scalable and could be spread to others. This discussion was particularly salient to our Teaching Value Project team as we hosted a breakfast to not only introduce the project, but also discuss the future and how to spread this innovation…so stay tuned.
  • Organizational culture and leadership matters… a lot. While on the subject of necessary ingredients for innovation, the terms organization and leadership would probably be the biggest if we did a word cloud of what people said at this meeting. It can feel trite, but it’s true…leadership and culture are key. The type of leadership that was highlighted focused on nurturing innovators and supporting people in the work that they do. While they are not afraid to take risks, they are also understand their frontline clinicians and patients. Too bad they also sounded like an endangered species. Not surprisingly, many groups had the same action item – train visionary leaders to lead these healthcare systems of the future.  While we can wait for the new visionary leader to be manufactured, culture always halts people in their tracks. How do you create the culture you want? The recurring theme here was to make sure you had good people. In other words, recruit people for the culture you want, not the on you have. And for a real change, a more radical business approach would be to let go of the “protectionist mentality” where everyone is going to keep their job. Moving to a results-oriented work environment would mean not only recruiting the right people but getting rid of the wrong people. I’m not so sure our academic health systems are ready to do this, but it was refreshing to hear from a business leader that term limits and succession planning were the norm. In this way, organizations are automatically refreshed with new ideas from leaders who were prepared to lead.
  • Eating radishes when you want to eat chocolate is work. To summarize, forcing people to exert willpower to resist what they want to do (eat chocolate) by doing something else (eating radishes) translates into hard work to resist, and less patience for something else. A more complete explanation of this study is here. Sure, this sounds simple, but we do keep piling quality measures and requirements on every physician in the context of a 15 minute office visit. Unfortunately, electronic health records are forcing us to eat more radishes, and this comes at the expense of talking to patients. At least two innovators solved this problem by having someone else eat the radishes, such as a scribe in primary care so that physicians could focus on the joy, spending more time with patients.
  • Ask patients to help design the solution.  While this may sound like a no brainer, its not as easy as it sounds!  This is an unusually high level of patient engagement that most of our organizations are not used to. In one stunning example, a hospital in Sweden redesigned its dialysis center so patients can swipe in whenever they want and self-administer their dialysis. In the innovation I presented, we asked 100 patients in our resident clinic what would make their clinic handoff go smoother when they transitioned PCP’s when their residents graduated.  The answers led us to interventions that we never would have thought of, like honoring the patients with a certificate to recognize their teaching efforts of our residents and a cartoon to facilitate patients learning how the process of the handover occurs and what they should do.

So, what does this mean for future doctors? Well, it starts with recruiting intrinsically motivated individuals and training them to be healthcare leaders who can learn to work alongside patients to generate small innovations that can add up to larger organizational transformation.  And let them eat chocolate … so they too can find the joy in their work.

–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 





Cleaning the Graffiti in Healthcare

24 07 2013

 I just left the most unusual conference I have ever attended.  First, it was small – 25 people.  Second, it was all women.  Third, it was all senior healthcare leaders who have done amazing things…make that trail-blazing things.  Moreover, I found myself surrounded by women who were journalists at major news outlets, retired military officers from the highest ranks, senior leaders (in some cases the senior most leader!) at major federal and state healthcare agencies, Fortune 500 companies, large health systems, healthcare foundations, national advocacy organizations.   It’s no surprise the name “Amazon warrior” resonated with this group!  Finally, the conference was all about identifying our “living legacy”.   Legacy seems like a strange word when you are living…it’s even stranger when you feel like you haven’t don’t anything yet!  So, how did I get invited you (and I) are wondering?  After all, I was the youngest person in the room, which as an aside, is a very unusual context when you work with students and residents for big chunks of the day.  So, believe it or not, I was invited by in large part due to my… social media presence!  After reviewing the list of participants, the organizers realized something was missing, and that something was someone younger who also had a social media presence.  And whoever said tweeting is a waste of time?

While there is much I could say, one of the group exercises on the last day of the conference is worth sharing and involving others in.  We were asked to examine “broken windows” in healthcare.  A broken window is a symbol of something smaller that is part of the context to a larger problem.  As Malcolm Gladwell popularized in his book, the Tipping Point, New York made a dent in the big problem of crime by tackling smaller problems, such as cleaning off the graffiti from the train every night.  By changing the context, people started to “own” the subway and report crime instead of expect it.  An excellent video summary is here.

So, how does this apply to healthcare?  While there are criticisms of the broken window theory, what a boon it would it be if we could locate something small in healthcare to fix the very large complex problems facing healthcare.   So, our group only had a short amount of time to pursue identifying broken window in healthcare.   While it sounds easy to come up with broken windows, it is much harder than it looks.   Interestingly, the healthcare problems here are so large, that the broken window may not be as simple and elegant as the graffiti example, but represent an easier place to start.  Here are three examples broken windows that we came up with.

  • Media portrayal of healthcare, especially related to resuscitation – By correcting the media portrayal of resuscitation, the public might have fewer unrealistic expectations of life sustaining therapies at the end-of-life, which could result in fewer people opting for futile measures.   By the way, researchers have even studies this (watching episodes of ER for research!) and have demonstrated the problem in a New England Journal article.   Imagine tackling this problem with media tools to demonstrate to people what a “good death” is.
  • Patient gown – While patient-centeredness is the new buzzword in our world, can we really say the system is patient centered?   Take the simple example of the patient gown which represents a loss of control and source of embarrassment to patients.  Could it be that when patients are in the gown, they feel to disempowered to engage in their own healthcare?  Could changing the gown empower patients to take a larger role in their healthcare?   In case you are wondering, there are many stories and efforts that have been undertaken to redesign the hospital gown – my favorite is the collaboration by Bridget Duffy, former Chief Patient Experience Officer at Cleveland Clinic, with fashion designer Donna Karan.
  • The Word Healthcare – It is well accepted that our healthcare system focuses on “healthcare” and not “health”.  Prevention and health promotion takes a back seat to intensive healthcare interventions.  It’s easy to resign that this will never change due to the payment system, or that return on investments in prevention are only realized in the long-term.  But, what if we could change the dialogue by using the word “health” instead of healthcare at every opportunity and juncture.  By changing the dialogue, can we change the context enough to create a change in the system?  I’m not sure, but at this point, I will say it is certainly worth a try.

There could be other examples of graffiti in healthcare.  By continuing the dialogue, hopefully we can locate the most promising levers for change.

–Vineet Arora MD

Special thanks to Dr. Joanne Conroy from the Association of American Medical Colleges for organizing the conference, our facilitators from the leadership consulting group Sunergos, and support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to make it happen.





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)





What Can the Unmatched Seniors Tell Us?

18 03 2013

Yesterday, after the mayhem and jubilation of celebrating a successful match at the Pritzker School of Medicine with our students, I went onto Twitter to follow the #match2013 hashtag to understand what the reactions were.  Most were positive, but one headline caught my attention ‘In Record-Setting ‘Match Day,’ 1,100 Medical Students Don’t Find Residencies.”

It is true this was the largest match because it was “All-in” – programs either were in the match for all their positions (including international medical graduates or IMGs) or they were not.  Obviously, many programs put more positions up for grabs in the Match.  After I reposted this article to Twitter, there were many theories and questions about who these unmatched students were and why  - some of which I have tried to answer to the best of my ability below.  I welcome your input as well.

  • Are these IMGs?  This number is US Senior medical students who have been admitted and graduated from US medical schools but now have no place to go to practice medicine.
  • Does this include those that entered the “scramble” now called SOAP. Technically, those that entered SOAP and were successful would have been counted as “matched” on Friday.   Last year,  815 Us seniors went unmatched after the SOAP.
  • Did they choose to go into competitive specialties? We have to wait for the 2013 NRMP statistics, which will likely address this.  The 2012 data shows that more unmatched seniors did choose to go into competitive fields.  Last year, the % unmatched is much higher for students applying to radiation oncology, dermatology, and competitive surgical fields for example.
  • Did they go unmatched to due to poor strategy or poor academic performance? While poor strategy such as ‘suicide’ ranking only one program is related to the risk of going unmatched, the truth is getting into residency is competitive and there are some who will not match because of poor academic performance. Some even argue that medical schools have little incentive to fail students and a portion of these students should not be graduating to begin with.
  • If they had gone into primary care, would they would have matched?  I hear this myth that program directors in primary care fields only take international medical graduates (IMGs) since not enough US medical graduates apply.   This is due to the largely untested assumption that any US Senior would be preferred to an IMG.  However, I personally know program directors who would definitely take a seasoned and high performing IMG over a below-average US Student.   The reason this is important is the rationale for not lifting the GME cap is that we have 50% of certain fields filled by IMGs and those spots would naturally be filled by US grads. Interestingly, many of these spots happen to be primary care driven fields.   Yet, it is still unclear if US Seniors will displace IMGs for spots in IMG oriented residencies.  It is also unclear if they will be willing to apply to programs that typically cater to IMGs, since they are often not considered as prestigious or geographically desirable to US students.
  • Is this related to the lack of GME spots? Certainly, it is true that more effective career advising may have resulted in applicants being more strategic about their rank list and not reaching for a competitive field.  However, we cannot ignore the supply/demand side of this equation.  At a time when there is a shortage of physicians and a call to increase the number of physicians, the US medical school system by responded to this call.   New medical schools have opened.  Existing medical schools have increased their enrollments.  So, there are now more US Seniors entering the match and there will be even more in the future as new medical schools mature their entering classes to graduating students over the next four years.  Given that the supply of matched candidates includes both foreign-born IMGs and US-born IMGs, there are more candidates than spots.  And while many believe IMGs will be the ones that get “squeezed out” in this shortage situation, again this is an untested assumption.  It is also important to recognize that IMGs often play a significant role in ensuring primary care for rural populations and underserved communities,which are often not geographically desirable by US graduates.

 We are left with a fundamental question:  Do we owe it to our entering medical students who successfully graduate from medical school to have a residency spot?   At a time when we have a shortage of physicians and a call for medical schools to increase in size, should we not expand our residencies?   Unfortunately, GME funding is on the chopping block because of the belief that too much money is being wasted on residency training.  Moreover, hospitals seem less enthusiastic about expanding residencies, as it is not as much of a bargain due to caps on hours residents work, and all the other new accreditation standards for residency training.

There is a potential solution.  The “Training Tomorrow’s Doctors Today Act” by Reps. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) and Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.), and the “Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2013” sponsored by Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would enable training 15,000 more physicians over 5 years.   Moreover, spots would be distributed to programs and specialties in critical shortages, like primary care.

Given the time that it takes to train a physician, now is the time to act to ensure we have the doctors we need for the future.

 –Vineet Arora MD MAPP





Love Letters for Med Students Follow-Up

27 01 2013

futuredocs:

For any students wondering what to do if they write or receive love letters from residency programs, here is an oldie but goodie to help. Since this post, we conducted a 7 school study in 2010 of graduates that showed that almost one-fifth reported feeling assured by a program they would match there but did not despite ranking that program first. Nearly one-fourth said they changed their rank order list based on communications with programs. The conclusion “Students should be advised to interpret any comments made by programs cautiously.” And of course be mindful that the 2013 Rank order list certification deadline is Feb 20th at 8pm Central Time. Good luck!

 

Vineet Arora MD

Originally posted on FutureDocs:

While Valentine’s Day is coming soon, a different sort of ‘love letter’ may be sent or received by senior medical students.  As recruitment season draws to a close, residency programs and applicants may be busy exchanging notes of interest, affectionately dubbed “love letters” by scores of medical students and on StudentDoctor.net.

What do these love letters mean?  Some students have asked us whether it is a Match Violation to get or send a love letter.  Others have worried they did not send enough or what type of language they should use.  Well, here are some quick tips on how to approach this somewhat awkward situation.

  1. Is it a Match Violation? It is not a Match Violation for a program or a student to express interest in the other.  However, these statements of interest cannot be binding (i.e. we will only rank you highly if you rank us #1).  If there is any part of it…

View original 711 more words








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 16,212 other followers

%d bloggers like this: