Year-End Clinic Handoffs: A National Survey of Academic Internal Medicine Programs

Reassessing the July Effect: 30 Years of Evidence Show No Difference in Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to critically evaluate whether admission at the beginning versus end of the academic year is associated with increased risk of major adverse outcomes.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The hypothesis that the arrival of new residents and fellows is associated with increases in adverse patient outcomes has been the subject of numerous research studies since 1989. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of July Effect studies published before December 20, 2019, looking for differences in mortality, major morbidity, and readmission. Given a paucity of studies reporting readmission, we further analyzed 7 years of data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database to assess for differences in 30-day readmission for US patients admitted to urban teaching versus nonteach-ing hospitals with 3 common medical (acute myocardial infarction, acute ischemic stroke, and pneumonia) and 4 surgical (elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery, elective colectomy, craniotomy, and hip fracture) conditions using risk-adjusted logistic difference-in-difference regression.

RESULTS

A total of 113 studies met inclusion criteria; 92 (81.4%) reported no evidence of a July Effect. Among the remaining studies, results were mixed and commonly pointed toward system-level discrepancies in efficiency. Metaanalyses of mortality [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.01 (0.98-1.05)] and major morbidity [1.01 (0.99-1.04)] demonstrated no evidence of a July Effect, no differences between specialties or countries, and no change in the effect over time. A total of 5.98 million patient encounters were assessed for readmission. No evidence of a July Effect on readmission was found for any of the 7 conditions.

CONCLUSION

The preponderance of negative results over the past 30 years suggests that it might be time to reconsider the need for similarly-themed studies and instead focus on system-level factors to improve hospital efficiency and optimize patient outcomes.

Provider-Level Barriers to Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in Survivors of Childhood and Young Adult Cancers

Purpose: We sought to understand clinician-level barriers to providing HPV vaccination to survivors of childhood and young adult cancers (CYACs). Methods: We conducted 30-minute qualitative interviews with primary care and specialty clinicians who care for survivors of CYACs at our academic medical center. Blinded reviewers analyzed transcripts and used an inductive approach to identify barriers to vaccination in this population. Results: We conducted 24 interviews (n = 11 primary care clinicians, n = 13 oncology clinicians). Thematic analysis revealed that primary care clinicians are universally viewed as holding ultimate responsibility for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among survivors of CYACs. Both primary care and oncology clinicians believed vague, inconsistent HPV guidelines engendered uncertainty toward HPV vaccination's role and timing following completion of CYAC therapies. As such, compared with other vaccines, the HPV vaccination is not as consistently offered to survivors. Respondents identified direct guidance from oncologists to primary care clinicians and to patients as a potential strategy for improving HPV vaccination rates in this population. Finally, oncology clinicians frequently deprioritize the issue of preventing second, noniatrogenic cancers and consequently miss opportunities to discuss vaccination's merits with their patients. Conclusions: Despite not holding ultimate responsibility for vaccination, oncology clinicians have an opportunity to play an important role in ensuring access and overcoming hesitancy among survivors of CYACs. Developing clearer and more collaborative guidelines, helping to integrate vaccination into institutional electronic health record protocols, offering direct guidance to primary care colleagues, and participating in conversations with survivors of CYACs may help improve vaccination rates.

Whose Patient Is This? A Scoping Review of Patient Ownership

PURPOSE

The scope of physicians' responsibility toward patients is becoming increasingly complicated to delimit as interdisciplinary care delivery and degrees of subspecialization increase. Patients can easily be lost across multiple transitions involved in care. Preparing learners to engage in safe and responsible patient care requires that we be clear about parameters of patient ownership. This scoping review (1) explores and synthesizes definitions of patient ownership and (2) describes the factors that influence patient ownership.

METHOD

Searching PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO, the authors sought out publications of any format (i.e., original research papers, review articles, commentaries, editorials, and author discussions) that (1) addressed patient ownership directly or a closely related concept that explicitly affected patient ownership, (2) included medical care providers (attending/faculty physicians, medical residents, and/or medical students), and (3) were published in English. The authors analyzed findings to construct common themes and categorize findings.

RESULTS

Of 411 papers screened, 82 met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-three papers defined patient ownership in highly variable ways. Common themes across definitions included responsibility for patient care, personally carrying out patient care tasks, knowledge of patients' medical information, independent decision making, and putting patients' needs above one's own. Factors influencing patient ownership were (1) logistical concerns, (2) personal attributes, and (3) socially or organizationally constructed expectations.

CONCLUSIONS

A new definition of patient ownership is proposed encompassing findings from the review, while also respecting the shift from individual to a team-based patient care, and without removing the centrality of an individual provider's commitment to patients.

A Decade of Teaching and Learning in Internal Medicine Ambulatory Education: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Ambulatory training in internal medicine residency programs has historically been considered less robust than inpatient-focused training, which prompted a 2009 revision of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Program Requirements in Internal Medicine. This revision was intended to create a balance between inpatient and outpatient training standards and to spur innovation in the ambulatory setting.

OBJECTIVE

We explored innovations in ambulatory education in internal medicine residency programs since the 2009 revision of the ACGME Program Requirements in Internal Medicine.

METHODS

The authors conducted a scoping review of the literature from 2008 to 2017, searching PubMed, ERIC, and Scopus databases. Articles related to improving educational quality of ambulatory components of US-based internal medicine residency programs were eligible for inclusion. Articles were screened for relevance and theme categorization and then divided into 6 themes: clinic redesign, curriculum development, evaluating resident practice/performance, teaching methods, program evaluation, and faculty development. Once a theme was assigned, data extraction and quality assessment using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) score were completed.

RESULTS

A total of 967 potentially relevant articles were discovered; of those, 182 were deemed relevant and underwent full review. Most articles fell into curriculum development and clinic redesign themes. The majority of included studies were from a single institution, used nonstandardized tools, and assessed outcomes at the satisfaction or knowledge/attitude/skills levels. Few studies showed behavioral changes or patient-level outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

While a rich diversity of educational innovations have occurred since the 2009 revision of the ACGME Program Requirements in Internal Medicine, there is a significant need for multi-institution studies and higher-level assessment.