#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





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!





Not Getting Sick in July

1 07 2013

Today is July 1st.  While everyone has heard the old adage about not getting sick in July because of new interns, the truth is that new interns nationwide have started already. Yet, you don’t hear much about the “late June effect?”  So is the July effect overblown or true?  Well, there have been many studies – so many so there was a recent systematic review co-authored by one of my own co-interns a long time ago.    While I am sure it was hard to synthesize the studies of often sub-par quality, the review does state “studies with higher-quality designs and larger sample sizes more often showed increased mortality and decreased efficiency at time of changeover.”  The study I recall best examined over 25 years worth of death records and found a pattern.  In the 240,000 deaths due to medication errors, mortality rates did increase in July, especially in counties with teaching hospitals.  I’m not sure death certificates are accurate as a way of diagnosing cause of death but that’s another story.

While it’s not possible for patients to time their illness, the question becomes what can be done to ensure July is as safe as possible? While there is scant literature on this topic, over the last several years, I have had the privilege of attending in July.  While I ended up attending in June this year before the interns switched, I was reminded of several ways in which July is different and can be made safer.

  • July requires more intense supervision.  Residency is a time of graduated supervision.  In June, a few weeks before third year residents graduate, it would be tragic or perhaps a sign of a problem if an attending had to oversee every little decision in the moment.  It would also annoy the senior residents to no end.  The senior residents have matured to the point that they are the team leaders and you are often the advisor and hearing about their decision-making and rationale and providing advice and guidance where needed.  That is certainly not the case in July.  In July, attendings often are hovering (even if they don’t admit it) or “epic-stalking” checking on every lab and medication.  Moreover, greater attending supervision is more commonplace since 2011 due to a huge push by accreditation agencies and in part due to shorter resident duty hours.   The truth is that interns are rarely acting alone and are often working in tandem with a more advanced resident and attending.  While a recent ICU study questions the utility of overnight attending supervision, a systematic review from our group found that enhancing supervision was associated with improved patient outcomes and resident education in a variety of settings.  Faculty can be more formally prepared for their bigger responsibility in July as it will not only require more time, but also more intensity of supervision. While this would include traditional in-person supervision, attendings can be taught to provide formal oversight of care through technology tools, such as the EHR, mobile computing, and yes, even Google Glass.
  • The residents are more eager to learn in July.  July is a time when interns and residents want to learn.  They are eager for feedback.  It is much harder to teach interns and residents in June since they have gotten good at their role…and picked up a lot of medical knowledge on the way.  Because of their umpteenth case of a certain disease, they may not find any additional learning in the case.  Of course, there are always more things to teach, but it is just a little harder than in July when your new interns are ready to soak up knowledge like a sponge.  You can also have a big impact on practice patterns before they form and cement best practices.  While some faculty shy away from signing up for July, many I know prefer to do July because of this reason!
  • Everyone is new in their role in July. July is a time of transition for all residents, such as senior residents, chief residents, not to mention new attendings.  Moreover, other health professional training programs are turning over too such as pharmacy residents.  One potential solution that has been mentioned is to stagger the start date of various specialties/professions so that not everyone is new in July.  While this is probably not as feasible as it sounds (and it doesn’t sound feasible), it is an interesting idea worth entertaining.
  • Anticipate the inefficiency. Because of the turnover in all staff, everything is a little less efficient.  While a little less efficiency may not seem like much, for a resident team, less efficient means likely higher census because of delayed discharges.  These higher patient workloads make caring for existing patients hard, and admitting new patients even harder, and of course all of this is under the pressure of the time clock.  Although not commonplace, I have heard of some programs lower workloads early in the year, anticipating this inefficiency.  Another way is to restructure teams so that there is more ‘redundancy’ on the team to help care for the patients.  Either mechanism seems like something to consider especially for teams that are struggling to get all the work done in time.
  • The patients seem to get sickest when the senior resident is off.  In the back of my head, I know this is probably some type of heuristic in which I am overweighting what the days are like when my senior resident is off….  Regardless, for some reason, it does seem like a good practice to anticipate patient illness on those days. And of course, extra supervision and assistance to the intern when the senior resident is a terrific idea.

While these observations may refer to July, just when the residents get accustomed to their role and rotation, its time to switch.  For this reason, it could be that August (and even September) is not that different from July…so while we focus a lot on July, it may be better to prepare for the Summer of Supervision.

Vineet Arora MD





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





Cultivating Creativity in Medical Training FedEx Style

14 01 2013

Over the holidays, I took full advantage of this opportunity to read a book from start to finish.  I chose Daniel Pink’s Drive.  It was actually recommended by @Medrants and I read it partly to understand why pay-for-performance often fails to accomplish its goals for complex tasks, such as patient care.  However, the thing I found most interesting about this book was the way in which creativity is deliberately inspired and cultivated by industry.

I could not help but think about why we don’t deliberately nurture creativity in medical trainees.  Why am I so interested in creativity?  Perhaps it is the countless trainees I have come across who are recruited to medical school and residency because of their commitment to service who also happen to have an exceptionally creative spirit.  Unfortunately, I worry too many of them have their spirit squashed during traditional medical training.   I am not alone.  I have seen experts argue the need to go from the traditional medical education that is fundamentally oppressive, inhibits critical thinking, and rewards conformity.   Apart from the criticism, it is of course understandable why medical training does not cultivate creativity.  Traditional medical practice does not value creativity.  Patients don’t equate ‘creative doctors’ as the ‘best doctors’.  In fact, doctors who may be overly creative are accused of quackery.

So, why bother with cultivating creativity in medical training? Well, for one thing, creativity is tightly linked to innovation, something we can all benefit from in medical education and healthcare delivery.   While patients may not want a ‘creative approach’ to their medical care, creativity is the key spice in generating groundbreaking medical research, developing a new community or global health outreach program, or testing an innovative approach to improving the system of care that we work in.  Lastly, one key reason to cultivate creativity in medical trainees is to keep all those hopeful and motivated trainees engaged so that they can find joy in work and realize their value and potential as future physicians.  In short, the healthcare system stands to benefit from the changes that are likely to emanate from creative inspired practicing physicians.

So what can we do to cultivate and promote creativity among medical trainees? While there are many possibilities including the trend to implement scholarly concentrations programs like the one I direct, one idea I was intrigued by was the use of a “FedEx Day”.  FedEx Days originated in an Australian software company, but became popularized by Daniel Pink and others in industry.  For a 24 hour period, employees are instructed to work on anything they want, provided it is not part of their regular job.  The name “FedEx” stuck because of the ‘overnight delivery’ of the exceptionally creative idea to the team, although there are efforts being undertaken to provide this idea with a new name. Some of the best ideas have come from FedEx Days or similar approaches, like 3M’s post-its or Google’s gmail.  I haven’t fully figured out how duty hours plays into this yet… so before you report me or ride this off, consider the following.  Borrowing on the theories of Daniel Pink, we would conclude that trainees would gladly volunteer their time to do this because of intrinsic motivation to work on something that they could control and create.  And to all the medical educators who can’t possibly imagine how would we do this during a jam packed training program, lets brainstorm a creative solution together!

Vineet Arora MD








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 16,208 other followers

%d bloggers like this: