"You Have to Know the End of the Story": Motivations to Follow Up After Transitions of Clinical Responsibility

A patient follow-up intervention to improve medical decision making at an internal medicine residency program

OBJECTIVES

Practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI) is an ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) core competency. Learning and reflecting on patients through follow-up is one method to help achieve this competency. We therefore designed a study evaluating a structured patient follow-up intervention for senior internal medicine (IM) residents at the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH).

METHODS

Trainees completed structured reflections after performing chart review of prior patients during protected educational time. Two-month follow-up surveys evaluated the exercise's potential influence on clinical and reflective practices.

RESULTS

Forty out of 108 (37 %) eligible residents participated in the exercise. Despite 62.5 % of participants lacking specific questions about patient outcomes before chart review, 81.2 % found the exercise at least moderately helpful. 48.4 % of participants believed that the review would change their practice, and 60.9 % felt it reinforced their existing clinical practices. In our qualitative data, residents learned lessons related to challenging clinical decisions, improving transitions of care, the significance of early goals of care conversations, and diagnostic errors/strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that IM residents found a structured patient follow-up intervention educational, even when they lacked specific patient outcomes questions. Our results underscore the importance of structured self-reflection in the continuous learning process of trainees and suggest the benefit of dedicated educational time for this process.

How to Keep Training-After Residency Training

Lifelong learning in medicine is an important skill and ethical obligation, but many residents do not feel prepared to be effective self-directed learners when training ends. The learning sciences offer evidence to guide self-directed learning, but these insights have not been integrated into a practical and actionable plan for residents to improve their clinical knowledge and reasoning. We encourage residents to establish a self-directed learning plan, just as an athlete employs a training plan in the pursuit of excellence. We highlight four evidence-based learning principles (spaced practice, mixed practice, retrieval practice, and feedback) and four training strategies comprising a weekly training plan: case tracking, simulated cases, quizzing, and new evidence integration. We provide tips for residents to implement and refine their approach and discuss how residency programs can foster these routines and habits. By optimizing their scarce self-directed learning time with a training plan, residents may enhance patient care and their career satisfaction through their pursuit of clinical mastery.

A Patient Outcomes-Driven Feedback Platform for Emergency Medicine Clinicians: Human-Centered Design and Usability Evaluation of Linking Outcomes Of Patients (LOOP)

Background

The availability of patient outcomes–based feedback is limited in episodic care environments such as the emergency department. Emergency medicine (EM) clinicians set care trajectories for a majority of hospitalized patients and provide definitive care to an even larger number of those discharged into the community. EM clinicians are often unaware of the short- and long-term health outcomes of patients and how their actions may have contributed. Despite large volumes of patients and data, outcomes-driven learning that targets individual clinician experiences is meager. Integrated electronic health record (EHR) systems provide opportunity, but they do not have readily available functionality intended for outcomes-based learning.

Objective

This study sought to unlock insights from routinely collected EHR data through the development of an individualizable patient outcomes feedback platform for EM clinicians. Here, we describe the iterative development of this platform, Linking Outcomes Of Patients (LOOP), under a human-centered design framework, including structured feedback obtained from its use.

Methods

This multimodal study consisting of human-centered design studios, surveys (24 physicians), interviews (11 physicians), and a LOOP application usability evaluation (12 EM physicians for ≥30 minutes each) was performed between August 2019 and February 2021. The study spanned 3 phases: (1) conceptual development under a human-centered design framework, (2) LOOP technical platform development, and (3) usability evaluation comparing pre- and post-LOOP feedback gathering practices in the EHR.

Results

An initial human-centered design studio and EM clinician surveys revealed common themes of disconnect between EM clinicians and their patients after the encounter. Fundamental postencounter outcomes of death (15/24, 63% respondents identified as useful), escalation of care (20/24, 83%), and return to ED (16/24, 67%) were determined high yield for demonstrating proof-of-concept in our LOOP application. The studio aided the design and development of LOOP, which integrated physicians throughout the design and content iteration. A final LOOP prototype enabled usability evaluation and iterative refinement prior to launch. Usability evaluation compared to status quo (ie, pre-LOOP) feedback gathering practices demonstrated a shift across all outcomes from “not easy” to “very easy” to obtain and from “not confident” to “very confident” in estimating outcomes after using LOOP. On a scale from 0 (unlikely) to 10 (most likely), the users were very likely (9.5) to recommend LOOP to a colleague.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the potential for human-centered design of a patient outcomes–driven feedback platform for individual EM providers. We have outlined a framework for working alongside clinicians with a multidisciplined team to develop and test a tool that augments their clinical experience and enables closed-loop learning.

Decisions in the Dark: An Educational Intervention to Promote Reflection and Feedback on Night Float Rotations

BACKGROUND

Night float rotations, where residents admit patients to the hospital, are opportunities for practice-based learning. However, night float residents receive little feedback on their diagnostic and management reasoning, which limits learning.

AIM

Improve night float residents' practice-based learning skills through feedback solicitation and chart review with guided reflection.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Second- and third-year internal medicine residents on a 1-month night float rotation between January and August 2017.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Residents performed chart review of a subset of patients they admitted during a night float rotation and completed reflection worksheets detailing patients' clinical courses. Residents solicited feedback regarding their initial management from day team attending physicians and senior residents.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Sixty-eight of 82 (83%) eligible residents participated in this intervention. We evaluated 248 reflection worksheets using content analysis. Major themes that emerged from chart review included residents' identification of future clinical practice changes, evolution of differential diagnoses, recognition of clinical reasoning gaps, and evaluation of resident-provider interactions.

DISCUSSION

Structured reflection and feedback during night float rotations is an opportunity to improve practice-based learning through lessons on disease progression, clinical reasoning, and communication.

Exploring current physicians' failure to communicate clinical feedback back to transferring physicians after transitions of patient care responsibility: A mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

After patient care transitions occur, communication from the current physician back to the transferring physician may be an important source of clinical feedback for learning from outcomes of previous reasoning processes. Factors associated with this communication are not well understood. This study clarifies how often, and for what reasons, current physicians do or do not communicate back to transferring physicians about transitioned patients.

METHODS

In 2018, 38 physicians at two academic teaching hospitals were interviewed about communication decisions regarding 618 transitioned patients. Researchers recorded quantitative and qualitative data in field notes, then coded communication rationales using directed content analysis. Descriptive statistics and mixed effects logistic regression analyses identified communication patterns and examined associations with communication for three conditions: When current physicians 1) changed transferring physicians' clinical decisions, 2) perceived transferring physicians' clinical uncertainty, and 3) perceived transferring physicians' request for communication.

RESULTS

Communication occurred regarding 17% of transitioned patients. Transferring physicians initiated communication in 55% of these cases. Communication did not occur when current physicians 1) changed transferring physicians' clinical decisions (119 patients), 2) perceived transferring physicians' uncertainty (97 patients), and 3) perceived transferring physicians' request for communication (12 patients). Rationales for no communication included case contextual, structural, interpersonal, and cultural factors. Perceived uncertainty and request for communication were positively associated with communication (p < 0.001) while a changed clinical decision was not.

DISCUSSION

Current physicians communicate infrequently with transferring physicians after assuming patient care responsibilities. Structural and interpersonal barriers to communication may be amenable to change. Clarity about transferring physicians' uncertainty and desire for communication back may improve clinical feedback communication.

Trainee and Program Director Perspectives on Meaningful Patient Attribution and Clinical Outcomes Data

BACKGROUND

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education specifies that trainees must receive clinical outcomes and quality benchmark data at specific levels related to institutional patient populations. Program directors (PDs) are challenged to identify meaningful data and provide them in formats acceptable to trainees.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand what types of patients, data/metrics, and data delivery systems trainees and PDs prefer for supplying trainees with clinical outcomes data.

METHODS

Trainees (n = 21) and PDs (n = 12) from multiple specialties participated in focus groups during academic year 2017-2018. They described key themes for providing clinical outcomes data to trainees.

RESULTS

Trainees and PDs differed in how they identified patients for clinical outcomes data for trainees. Trainees were interested in encounters where they felt a sense of responsibility or had autonomy/independent decision-making opportunities, continuity, or learned something new; PDs used broader criteria including all patients cared for by their trainees. Both groups thought trainees should be given trainee-level metrics and consistently highlighted the importance of comparison to peers and/or benchmarks. Both groups found value in "push" and "pull" data systems, although trainees wanted both, while PDs wanted one or the other. Both groups agreed that trainees should review data with specific faculty. Trainees expressed concern about being judged based on their patients' clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Trainee and PD perspectives on which patients they would like outcomes data for differed, but they overlapped for types of metrics, formats, and review processes for the data.

A view from the sender side of feedback: anticipated receptivity to clinical feedback when changing prior physicians' clinical decisions-a mixed methods study

When physicians transition patients, the physician taking over may change the diagnosis. Such a change could serve as an important source of clinical feedback to the prior physician. However, this feedback may not transpire if the current physician doubts the prior physician's receptivity to the information. This study explored facilitators of and barriers to feedback communication in the context of patient care transitions using an exploratory sequential, qualitative to quantitative, mixed methods design. Twenty-two internal medicine residents and hospitalist physicians from two teaching hospitals were interviewed and data were analyzed thematically. A prominent theme was participants' reluctance to communicate diagnostic changes. Participants perceived case complexity and physical proximity to facilitate, and hierarchy, unfamiliarity with the prior physician, and lack of relationship to inhibit communication. In the subsequent quantitative portion of the study, forty-one hospitalists completed surveys resulting in 923 total survey responses. Multivariable analyses and a mixed-effects model were applied to survey data with anticipated receptivity as the outcome variable. In the mixed-effects model, four factors had significant positive associations with receivers' perceived receptivity: (1) feedback senders' time spent on teaching services (β = 0.52, p = 0.02), (2) receivers' trustworthiness and clinical credibility (β = 0.49, p < 0.001), (3) preference of both for shared work rooms (β = 0.15, p = 0.006), and (4) receivers being peers (β = 0.24, p < 0.001) or junior colleagues (β = 0.39, p < 0.001). This study suggests that anticipated receptivity to feedback about changed clinical decisions affects clinical communication loops. Without trusting relationships and opportunities for low risk, casual conversations, hospitalists may avoid such conversations.

Reflections From the Rearview Mirror: Internal Medicine Physicians' Reactions to Clinical Feedback After Transitions of Responsibility

PURPOSE

Learning from practice is important for continuous improvement of practice. Yet little is known about how physicians assimilate clinical feedback and use it to refine their diagnostic approaches. This study described physicians' reactions to learning that their provisional diagnosis was either consistent or inconsistent with the subsequent diagnosis, identified emotional responses to those findings, and explored potential consequences for future practices.

METHOD

In 2016-2017, 22 internal medicine hospitalist and resident physicians at Oregon Health & Science University completed semistructured interviews. Critical incident prompts elicited cases of patient care transitions before the diagnosis was known. Interview questions explored participants' subsequent follow-up. Matrix analysis of case elements, emotional reactions, and perceived practice changes was used to compare patterns of responses between cases of confirming versus disconfirming clinical feedback.

RESULTS

Participants described 51 cases. When clinical feedback confirmed provisional diagnoses (17 cases), participants recalled positive emotions, judged their performance as sufficient, and generally reinforced current approaches. When clinical feedback was disconfirming (34 cases), participants' emotional reactions were mostly negative, frequently tempered with rationalizations, and often associated with perceptions of having made a mistake. Perceived changes in practice mostly involved nonspecific strategies such as "trusting my intuition" and "broadening the differential," although some described case-specific strategies that could be applied in similar contexts in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

Internists' experiences with posttransition clinical feedback are emotionally charged. Internists' reflections on clinical feedback experiences suggest they are primed to adapt practices for the future, although the usefulness of those adaptations for improving practice is less clear.

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.

"Closing the loop": a mixed-methods study about resident learning from outcome feedback after patient handoffs

Background Learning patient outcomes is recognized as crucial for ongoing refinement of clinical decision-making, but is often difficult in fragmented care with frequent handoffs. Data on resident habits of seeking outcome feedback after handoffs are lacking. Methods We performed a mixed-methods study including (1) an analysis of chart re-access rates after handoffs performed using access logs of the electronic health record (EHR); and (2) a web-based survey sent to internal medicine (IM) and emergency medicine (EM) residents about their habits of and barriers to learning the outcomes of patients after they have handed them off to other teams. Results Residents on ward rotations were often able to re-access charts of patients after handoffs, but those on EM or night admitting rotations did so <5% of the time. Among residents surveyed, only a minority stated that they frequently find out the outcomes of patients they have handed off, although learning outcomes was important to both their education and job satisfaction. Most were not satisfied with current systems of learning outcomes of patients after handoffs, citing too little time and lack of reliable patient tracking systems as the main barriers. Conclusions Despite perceived importance of learning outcomes after handoffs, residents cite difficulty with obtaining such information. Systematically providing feedback on patient outcomes would meet a recognized need among physicians in training.

Chart stalking, list making, and physicians' efforts to track patients' outcomes after transitioning responsibility

CONTEXT

Transitions of patient care responsibility occur frequently between physicians. Resultant discontinuities make it difficult for physicians to observe clinical outcomes. Little is known about what physicians do to overcome the practical challenges to learning these discontinuities create. This study explored physicians' activities in practice as they sought follow-up information about patients.

METHODS

Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, semi-structured interviews with 18 internal medicine hospitalist and resident physicians at a single tertiary care academic medical center explored participants' strategies when deliberately conducting follow-up after they transitioned responsibility for patients to other physicians. Following open coding, the authors used activity theory (AT) to explore interactions among the social, cultural and material influences related to follow-up.

RESULTS

The authors identified three themes related to follow-up: (i) keeping lists to track patients, (ii) learning to create tracking systems and (iii) conducting follow-up. Analysis of participants' follow-up processes as an activity system highlighted key tensions in the system and participants' work adaptations. Tension within functionality of electronic health records for keeping lists (tools) to find information about patients' outcomes (object) resulted in using paper lists as workarounds. Tension between paper lists (tools) and protecting patients' health information (rules) led to rule-breaking or abandoning activities of locating information. Finding time to conduct desired follow-up produced tension between this and other activity systems.

CONCLUSION

In clinical environments characterised by discontinuity, lists of patients served as tools for guiding patient care follow-up. The authors offer four recommendations to address the tensions identified through AT: (i) optimise electronic health record tracking systems to eliminate the need for paper lists; (ii) support physicians' skill development in developing and maintaining tracking systems for follow-up; (iii) dedicate time in physicians' work schedules for conducting follow-up; and (iv) engage physicians and patients in determining guidelines for longitudinal tracking that optimise physicians' learning and respect patients' privacy.