Search

Objectives: Morning report is one of the central activities of internal medicine residency education. The two most common morning report formats are scripted reports, which use preselected cases with prepared didactics, and unscripted reports in which a case is discussed without preparation. No previous study has compared these two formats., Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of morning report conducted at 10 academic medical centers across the United States., Results: A total of 198 case-based morning reports were observed. Of these, 169 (85%) were scripted and 29 (15%) were unscripted. Scripted reports were more likely to present a case with a known final diagnosis (89% vs 76%, P = 0.04), use electronic slides (76% vs 52%, P = 0.01), involve more than 15 slides (55% vs 3%, P < 0.001), and reference the medical literature (61% vs 34%, P = 0.02), including professional guidelines (32% vs 10%, P = 0.02) and original research (25% vs 0%, P = 0.001). Scripted reports also consumed more time in prepared didactics (8.0 vs 0 minutes, P < 0.001). Unscripted reports consumed more time in case history (10.0 vs 7.0 minutes, P < 0.001), physical examination (3.0 vs 2.0 minutes, P = 0.06), and differential diagnosis (10.0 vs 7.0 minutes, P = 0.01)., Conclusions: Most contemporary morning reports are scripted. Compared with traditional unscripted reports, scripted reports are more likely to involve a case with a known diagnosis, use extensive electronic presentation slides, and consume more time in didactics, while unscripted reports consume more time in the early diagnostic process, including history, physical examination, and differential diagnosis. Residency programs interested in emphasizing these aspects of medical education should encourage unscripted morning reports.

Background: There are more than five hundred internal medicine residency programs in the USA, involving 27,000 residents. Morning report is a central educational activity in resident education, but no recent studies describe its format or content., Objective: To describe the format and content of internal medicine morning reports., Design and Participants: Prospective observational study of morning reports occurring between September 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019, in ten different VA academic medical centers in the USA., Main Measures: Report format, number and type of learner, number and background of attending, frequency of learner participation, and the type of media used. Content areas including quality and safety, high-value care, social determinants of health, evidence-based medicine, ethics, and bedside teaching. For case-based reports, the duration of different aspects of the case was recorded, the ultimate diagnosis when known, and if the case was scripted or unscripted., Results: A total of 225 morning reports were observed. Reports were predominantly case-based, moderated by a chief resident, utilized digital presentation slides, and involved a range of learners including medicine residents, medical students, and non-physician learners. The most common attending physician present was a hospitalist. Reports typically involved a single case, which the chief resident reviewed prior to report and prepared a teaching presentation using digital presentation slides. One-half of cases were categorized as either rare or life-threatening. The most common category of diagnosis was medication side effects. Quality and safety, high-value care, social determinants of health, and evidence-based medicine were commonly discussed. Medical ethics was rarely addressed., Conclusions: Although a wide range of formats and content were described, internal medicine morning report most commonly involves a single case that is prepared ahead of time by the chief resident, uses digital presentation slides, and emphasizes history, differential diagnosis, didactics, and rare or life-threatening diseases.

Purpose: To determine whether longitudinal student involvement improves patient satisfaction with care., Method: The authors conducted a satisfaction survey of patients followed by 10 University of Minnesota Medical School students enrolled in 2016-2017 in the Veterans Affairs Longitudinal Undergraduate Medical Education (VALUE) program, a longitudinal integrated clerkship at the Minneapolis Veterans Health Care System. Students were embedded in an ambulatory practice with primary preceptors who assigned students a panel of 14 to 32 patients to follow longitudinally in inpatient and outpatient settings. Control patients, matched on disease severity, were chosen from the preceptor's panel. Two to five months after the students completed the VALUE program, the authors conducted a phone survey of the VALUE and control patients using a validated, customized questionnaire., Results: Results are reported from 97 VALUE patients (63% response rate) and 72 controls (47% response rate) who had similar baseline characteristics. Compared with control patients, VALUE patients reported greater satisfaction with explanations provided by their health care provider, their provider's knowledge of their personal history, and their provider's looking out for their best interests (P < .05). Patients in the VALUE panel selected the top category more often than control patients for overall satisfaction with their health care (65% vs 43%, P < .05)., Conclusions: The results of this controlled trial demonstrate that VALUE student longitudinal participation in patient care improves patient satisfaction and patient-perceived quality of health care for VALUE patients compared with controls matched by primary care provider and disease severity. These findings may have implications outside the Veterans Administration population.

Problem: Current models of health care quality improvement do not explicitly describe the role of health professions education. The authors propose the Exemplary Care and Learning Site (ECLS) model as an approach to achieving continual improvement in care and learning in the clinical setting., Approach: From 2008-2012, an iterative, interactive process was used to develop the ECLS model and its core elements--patients and families informing process changes; trainees engaging both in care and the improvement of care; leaders knowing, valuing, and practicing improvement; data transforming into useful information; and health professionals competently engaging both in care improvement and teaching about care improvement. In 2012-2013, a three-part feasibility test of the model, including a site self-assessment, an independent review of each site's ratings, and implementation case stories, was conducted at six clinical teaching sites (in the United States and Sweden)., Outcomes: Site leaders reported the ECLS model provided a systematic approach toward improving patient (and population) outcomes, system performance, and professional development. Most sites found it challenging to incorporate the patients and families element. The trainee element was strong at four sites. The leadership and data elements were self-assessed as the most fully developed. The health professionals element exhibited the greatest variability across sites., Next Steps: The next test of the model should be prospective, linked to clinical and educational outcomes, to evaluate whether it helps care delivery teams, educators, and patients and families take action to achieve better patient (and population) outcomes, system performance, and professional development.

The height that adult humans achieve results from a complex interplay between genetic endowment and environmental exposures during development. We hypothesize that exposure to microbes--both exogenous pathogens and endogenous biota--are critical environmental determinants of the expression of human height in a community. Both experimental studies and historical changes in height in relation to presumed microbial transmission support this hypothesis.