Search

Background Conducting postcall morning handoffs using a resident handoff bundle such as I-PASS can prove challenging. This may delay recognizing and acting on clinically important patient issues that arose overnight. Objective We developed and implemented the I-CATCH morning handoff bundle and evaluated its impact on the proportion of overnight patient issues handed off from the on-call resident to the daytime team. Methods We evaluated the I-CATCH (Identify patient; Characterize situation; Action–what was done overnight?; To do for the team in the morning; Confirm the Handoff) handoff bundle from November 2015 to May 2016 on general internal medicine wards at 1 academic teaching hospital. The bundle entailed staff/resident training, structured communication, and dedicated handoff space and time. We compared handoffs of overnight on-call issues by evening resident to daytime medical team before and after implementation, and used statistical process control to analyze adherence to the mnemonic. Results We observed 435 handoffs (242 pre- and 193 postimplementation) over 63 days. There was no significant association between I-CATCH implementation and proportion of on-call overnight issues handed off (OR = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52–1.47; P = .85). Running the list by going through patients one-by-one (OR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.1–2.77; P = .019), progress note documentation (OR = 3.80; 95% CI 2.19–6.60; P < .001), and direct handoff (OR = 4.84; 95% CI 1.43–16.42; P = .011) correlated with an increased likelihood of morning handoff. Conclusions Implementing the I-CATCH bundle did not improve handoff of overnight issues to the daytime team.

Background Residents' attitudes toward error disclosure have improved over time. It is unclear whether this has been accompanied by improvements in disclosure skills. Objective To measure the disclosure skills of internal medicine (IM), paediatrics, and orthopaedic surgery residents, and to explore resident perceptions of formal versus informal training in preparing them for disclosure in real-world practice. Methods We assessed residents' error disclosure skills using a structured role play with a standardized patient in 2012–2013. We compared disclosure skills across programs using analysis of variance. We conducted a multiple linear regression, including data from a historical cohort of IM residents from 2005, to investigate the influence of predictor variables on performance: training program, cohort year, and prior disclosure training and experience. We conducted a qualitative descriptive analysis of data from semistructured interviews with residents to explore resident perceptions of formal versus informal disclosure training. Results In a comparison of disclosure skills for 49 residents, there was no difference in overall performance across specialties (4.1 to 4.4 of 5, P = .19). In regression analysis, only the current cohort was significantly associated with skill: current residents performed better than a historical cohort of 42 IM residents (P Conclusions Residents across specialties have similar skills in disclosure of errors. Residents identified role modeling and a strong local patient safety culture as key facilitators for disclosure.

T he Journal of Graduate Medical Education often receives submissions from trainees and educators highlighting work they do in quality improvement (QI). This is remarkably encouraging given the emphasis that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Next Accreditation System has placed on integrating QI into the clinical learning environment. A major challenge for editors reviewing these manuscripts is the inconsistency with which authors report QI initiatives. After reviewing a large number of these submissions, we have noted common problems that arise and have prepared the following guide to help prospective authors prepare QI reports for publication. Consistent with the Journal’s common format for Original Research or Educational Innovation articles (ie, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion), our suggestions will highlight what authors should explicitly emphasize within each of these manuscript sections as it pertains to their QI initiative. We realize that a number of other frameworks and guidelines exist, the most common being the SQUIRE guidelines, which were updated in the fall of 2015. Our suggestions are synergistic with the updated SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines, yet they also provide a high-level view of the philosophies that underpin these guidelines to help authors not only at the time of writing, but also when planning and implementing their QI initiatives.

Background Residents may be commonly involved with medical errors and need faculty support when disclosing these to patients. Objective We characterized residents' preferences for faculty involvement and support during the error disclosure process. Methods We surveyed residents from internal medicine, pediatrics, emergency medicine, general and orthopedic surgery, and obstetrics and gynecology residency programs at the University of Toronto in 2014–2015 about their preferences for faculty involvement across a variety of different error scenarios (ie, error type, severity, and proximity) and for elements of support they perceive to be most helpful during the disclosure process. Results Over 90% of the 192 respondents (N = 538, response rate 36%) wanted direct involvement in the error disclosure process, irrespective of type or severity of the error. Residents were relatively comfortable disclosing prescription and communication errors without direct faculty involvement but preferred faculty involvement when disclosing diagnostic and management errors. When errors were severe, many residents still wanted to be involved but preferred having faculty lead the disclosure. Residents particularly wanted to participate in the process when they felt responsible for the error. Residents highly valued receiving faculty advice on how to manage consequences and how to prevent future errors in preparing for disclosure, as well as receiving postdisclosure feedback and personal support. Conclusions Residents are willing participants in the error disclosure process and have specific preferences for faculty involvement and support. These findings can inform faculty development to ensure appropriate support and supervision for residents when disclosing errors to patients.

Background Despite a mandate to teach quality improvement (QI) to residents, many training programs lack faculty capacity to deliver a QI curriculum. Objective We piloted a co-learning curriculum in QI to train residents while simultaneously developing QI teachers. We evaluated the curriculum's acceptability and feasibility and its effect on faculty engagement in doing and teaching QI. Methods The curriculum involved 2 half-day, interactive sessions, a team-based QI project, and end-of-year project presentations. Key curriculum design principles included (1) residents and faculty co-attend all interactive sessions, (2) residents and faculty work together on team-based QI projects, and (3) QI projects align with divisional QI priorities. Using the Kirkpatrick framework for learner outcomes, we focused our program evaluation on Level 1 (satisfaction) and Level 2 (knowledge and skills acquisition) outcomes using year-end curriculum evaluations. Results Our study included 14 residents (70%) and 6 faculty members (30%). With respect to satisfaction (Kirkpatrick Level 1 outcome), 93% (13 of 14) of residents and 100% (6 of 6) of faculty participants rated the overall curriculum as “above average” or “outstanding.” Regarding faculty knowledge and skills acquisition (Kirkpatrick Level 2 outcomes), faculty self-rated their QI knowledge and interest in QI higher than their intent to incorporate QI into future practice and their comfort in teaching or supervising QI projects. All 5 faculty respondents (100%) rated the co-learning model for faculty development in QI as “above average” or “outstanding.” Conclusions Teaching QI to residents and faculty as co-learners is feasible and acceptable and offers a promising model for programs to teach QI to residents while concurrently building faculty capacity.