Search

Background: Despite enthusiasm for inpatient ward redesign, coordinated models require high effort with uncertain return on investment. Objective: We aimed to reduce mortality and achieve a benchmark of zero preventable deaths by committing to an interprofessional model, including partnered nurse-physician unit leadership, geographic localization, and structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds (SIBR). Methods: An observational pre-post design with 5-year follow-up studied the transition of a medical unit to an Accountable Care Unit (ACU). This geographic model enables partnered nurse-physician leadership and patient-centered workflows, including daily interdisciplinary bedside rounds. Potentially additive or confounding hospital-wide safety initiatives were tracked. Yearly mortality was compared using multivariable logistic regression and reported as odds ratio (OR). For the pre-specified goal of no preventable deaths, we report unexpected deaths, defined as those occurring without documentation of comfort as the goal of care. Results: 12,158 inpatients (55.1% female, mean [sd] age 62.2 [19.7]) were observed over 6 years. Reduction in the risk-adjusted mortality was observed following ACU implementation, with Year 2 significantly lower than the pre-implementation year (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.58 [0.35–0.94]). Risk-adjusted mortality was similar in Year 3 (aOR = 0.64 [0.39–1.0]) but returned to baseline for Years 4 and 5. Unexpected deaths reached zero in Year 3 and plateaued in Years 4 and 5 at a rate below pre-implementation year (~0.1% vs. 0.38%). Conclusions: A geographic ACU with nurse-physician partnered leadership and daily structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds can reduce total and unexpected mortality. However, maintenance requires constant effort and, in the real world, multiple confounders complicate study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Teaching the practice of high-value care (HVC) is an increasingly important function of graduate medical education but best practices and long-term outcomes remain unknown. Objective: Whether a multimodal curriculum designed to address specific drivers of low-value care would affect resident attitudes, skills, and performance of HVC as tested by the Internal Medicine In-Training Exam (ITE). Methods: In 2012, we performed a baseline needs assessment among internal medicine residents at a community program regarding drivers of healthcare utilization. We then created a multimodal curriculum with online interactive worksheets, lectures, and faculty buy-in to target specific skills, knowledge, and culture deficiencies. Perceived drivers of care and performance on the Internal Medicine ITE were assessed yearly through 2016. Results: Fourteen of 27 (52%) residents completed the initial needs assessment while the curriculum was eventually seen by at least 24 of 27 (89%). The ITE was taken by every resident every year. Long-term, 3-year follow-up demonstrated persistent improvement in many drivers of utilization (patient requests, reliance on subspecialists, defensive medicine, and academic curiosity) and improvement with sustained high performance on the high-value component of the ITE. Conclusion: A multimodal curriculum targeting specific drivers of low-value care can change culture and lead to sustained improvement in the practice of HVC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medical residents frequently participate in code status discussions, yet their competency in this role has not been evaluated. Purpose: The objective is to determine the quality of code status discussions from the perspective of both resident and patient. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of consecutive pairs of hospitalized patients and admitting residents at Mayo Clinic in March 2007. We measured perceptions of occurrence and content of code status discussions, admission volume, and demographic information. Results: Among the 41 matched pairs, residents and patients agreed that a code status conversation occurred in 63% of cases. Agreement was more likely if residents performed less than 4 admissions (p= .02). Patients reported the inclusion of specific discussion components, such as resuscitation procedures (7%) and outcomes (0%), less frequently than residents (71% and 27%, respectively, p< .001). Conclusions: Residents and patients demonstrated poor agreement on the occurrence and components of code status conversations. Residency programs should identify ways to enhance residents' competency in eliciting patients' code status preferences and provide adequate time for code status discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on the desire and acceptance of medical residency program directors in the U.S. regarding the support rendered by the pharmaceutical industry. It surveys 381 internal medicine residency program directors from 2006 to 2007 regarding pharmaceutical industry support to their training programs. Furthermore, it shows that more than half of the residency programs accept industry support, although most program directors did not find the support as desirable.

Abstract: The do-not-resuscitate order, introduced nearly a half century ago, continues to raise questions and controversy among health care providers and patients. In today''s society, the expectation and availability of medical interventions, including at the end of life, have rendered the do-not-resuscitate order particularly relevant. The do-not-resuscitate order is the only order that requires patient consent to prevent a medical procedure from being performed; therefore, informed code status discussions between physicians and patients are especially important. Epidemiologic studies have informed our understanding of resuscitation outcomes; however, patient, provider, and institutional characteristics account for great variability in the prevalence of do-not-resuscitate orders. Specific strategies can improve the quality of code status conversations and enhance end-of-life care planning. In this article, we review the history, epidemiology, and determinants of do-not-resuscitate orders, as well as frequently encountered questions and recommended strategies for discussing this important topic with patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]