Confidence of academic general internists and family physicians to teach ambulatory procedures.
(49/962)
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the readiness of academic general internal medicine physicians and academic family medicine physicians to perform and teach 13 common ambulatory procedures. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: Internal medicine and family medicine residency training programs associated with 35 medical schools in 9 eastern states. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of full-time teaching faculty. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 331 general internists and 271 family physicians returned completed questionnaires, with response rates of 57% and 65%, respectively. Academic generalists ranked most of the ambulatory procedures as important for primary care physicians to perform; however, they infrequently performed or taught many of the procedures. Overall, compared with family physicians, general internists performed and taught fewer procedures, received less training, and were less confident in their ability to teach these procedures. Physicians' confidence to teach a procedure was strongly associated with training to perform the procedure and performing or precepting a procedure at least 10 times per year. CONCLUSIONS: Many academic general internists do not perform or precept common adult ambulatory procedures. To ensure that residents have the opportunity to learn routine ambulatory procedures, training programs may need to recruit qualified faculty, train current faculty, or arrange for academic specialists or community physicians to teach these skills. (+info)
Confidence of graduating internal medicine residents to perform ambulatory procedures.
(50/962)
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the training of graduating internal medicine residents to perform 13 common ambulatory procedures, 3 inpatient procedures, and 3 screening examinations. DESIGN: Self-administered descriptive survey. SETTING: Internal medicine training programs associated with 9 medical schools in the eastern United States. PARTICIPANTS: Graduating residents (N = 128); response rate, 60%. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The total number of procedures performed during residency, importance for primary care physicians to perform these procedures, confidence to perform these procedures, and helpfulness of rotations for learning procedures were assessed. The majority of residents performed only 2 of 13 outpatient procedures 10 or more times during residency: simple spirometry and minor wound suturing. For all other procedures, the median number performed was 5 or fewer. The percentage of residents attributing high importance to a procedure was significantly greater than the percentage reporting high confidence for 8 of 13 ambulatory procedures; for all inpatient procedures, residents reported significantly higher confidence than importance. Continuity clinic and block ambulatory rotations were not considered helpful for learning ambulatory procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Though residents in this sample considered most ambulatory procedures important for primary care physicians, they performed them infrequently, if at all, during residency and did not consider their continuity clinic experience helpful for learning these skills. Training programs need to address this deficiency by modifying the curriculum to ensure that these skills are taught to residents who anticipate a career in primary care medicine. (+info)
Successful lecturing: a prospective study to validate attributes of the effective medical lecture.
(51/962)
OBJECTIVE: In a study conducted over 3 large symposia on intensive review of internal medicine, we previously assessed the features that were most important to course participants in evaluating the quality of a lecture. In this study, we attempt to validate these observations by assessing prospectively the extent to which ratings of specific lecture features would predict the overall evaluation of lectures. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: After each lecture, 143 to 355 course participants rated the overall lecture quality of 69 speakers involved in a large symposium on intensive review of internal medicine. In addition, 7 selected participants and the course directors rated specific lecture features and overall quality for each speaker. The relations among the variables were assessed through Pearson correlation coefficients and cluster analysis. Regression analysis was performed to determine which features would predict the overall lecture quality ratings. The features that most highly correlated with ratings of overall lecture quality were the speaker's abilities to identify key points (r =.797) and be engaging (r =.782), the lecture clarity (r =.754), and the slide comprehensibility (r =.691) and format (r =.660). The three lecture features of engaging the audience, lecture clarity, and using a case-based format were identified through regression as the strongest predictors of overall lecture quality ratings (R2 = 0.67, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We have identified core lecture features that positively affect the success of the lecture. We believe our findings are useful for lecturers wanting to improve their effectiveness and for educators who design continuing medical education curricula. (+info)
Physicians' reports of focused expertise in clinical practice.
(52/962)
Little is known about the prevalence of focused expertise (special areas of expertise within a clinical field) among physicians, yet such expertise may influence how care is delivered. We surveyed general internists, pediatricians, cardiologists, infectious disease specialists, and orthopedic surgeons to describe the prevalence of focused expertise and identify associated physician and practice characteristics. About one quarter of generalists and three quarters of specialists reported a focused expertise within their primary specialty. Hospital-based physicians more often reported such expertise, and physicians reimbursed by capitation less often reported expertise. Learning how focused expertise affects processes and outcomes of care will contribute to decisions about physician training and staffing of medical groups. (+info)
Length of stay and costs for hospitalized hemodialysis patients: nephrologists versus internists.
(53/962)
The high cost of hospitalization for hemodialysis patients has become a major health care issue. To address this issue, length of hospital stay and costs for these patients were compared with services covered by nephrologists and services covered by internists. Hemodialysis patients (n = 161) were prospectively admitted 219 times on alternate days to services covered by nephrologists or by internists from July 1995 to March 1996. Admissions to nonmedical services and admissions for overnight observation were excluded. Length of stay, costs, and risk-adjusted predicted length of stay and costs, as well as the number of consultations were compared between services, using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Readmissions and deaths were compared using chi(2) tests. Mean length of stay for admissions to the nephrology service (n = 114) was 6.3 days compared with 8.1 days for admissions to internal medicine services (n = 105) (P = 0.017). The predicted length of stay was similar. Mean overall cost for admissions under the care of nephrologists was $7,925 versus $10,773 under the care of internists (P = 0.101). The internal medicine service averaged 1.5 consultations versus 0.5 consultations for the nephrology service (P = 0.001). The risk of readmission was 24% for nephrologists and 30% for internists (P = 0.328). Death within 90 days of discharge was 12% for the nephrology group and 22% for the internal medicine group (P = 0.07). The length of stay was significantly shorter for hemodialysis patients under the care of nephrologists compared with internists. The average total costs and risk of readmissions tended to be lower for nephrologists. If these results are corroborated, the care of hemodialysis patients by the nephrologist could diminish the overall expense of the ESRD program. (+info)
A physician survey of the effect of drug sample availability on physicians' behavior.
(54/962)
OBJECTIVE: Pharmaceutical companies often use drug samples as a marketing strategy in the ambulatory care setting. Little is known about how the availability of drug samples affects physicians' prescribing practices. Our goal was to assess: (1) under what circumstances and why physicians dispense drug samples, (2) if drug samples lead physicians to use medications other than their preferred drug choice, and (3) the physician characteristics that are associated with drug sample use. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: University-based clinics at one academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: 154 general medicine and family physicians. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Physicians' self-reported prescribing patterns for 3 clinical scenarios, including their preferred drug choice, whether they would use a drug sample and subsequently prescribe the sampled medication, and the importance of factors involved in the decision to dispense a drug sample. A total of 131 (85%) of 154 physicians responded. When presented with an insured woman with an uncomplicated lower urinary tract infection, 22 (17%) respondents reported that they would dispense a drug sample; 21 (95%) of 22 sample users stated that they would dispense a drug sample that differed from their preferred drug choice. For an uninsured man with hypertension, 35 (27%) respondents reported that they would dispense a drug sample; 32 (91%) of 35 sample users indicated that they would dispense a drug sample instead of their preferred drug choice. For an uninsured woman with depression, 108 (82%) respondents reported that they would dispense a drug sample; 53 (49%) of 108 sample users indicated that they would dispense a drug sample that differed from their preferred drug choice. Avoiding cost to the patient was the most consistent motivator for dispensing a drug sample for all 3 scenarios. For 2 scenarios, residents were more likely to report using drug samples than attendings (P <.05). When respondents who chose a drug sample for 2 or 3 scenarios were compared to those who never chose to use a drug sample, or chose a drug sample for only one scenario, only younger age was independently associated with drug sample use. CONCLUSION: In self-reports, the availability of drug samples led physicians to dispense and subsequently prescribe drugs that differ from their preferred drug choice. Physicians most often report using drug samples to avoid cost to the patient. (+info)
Evaluation of a national curriculum reform effort for the medicine core clerkship.
(55/962)
BACKGROUND: In 1995, the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) and the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) developed and disseminated a new model curriculum for the medicine core clerkship that was designed to enhance learning of generalist competencies and increase interest in general internal medicine. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the dissemination and use of the resulting SGIM/CDIM Core Medicine Clerkship Curriculum Guide. DESIGN: Survey of internal medicine clerkship directors at the 125 medical schools in the United States. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The questionnaire elicited information about the use and usefulness of the Guide and each of its components, barriers to effective use of the Guide, and outcomes associated with use of the Guide. Responses were received from 95 clerkship directors, representing 88 (70%) of the 125 medical schools. Eighty-seven (92%) of the 95 respondents were familiar with the Guide, and 80 respondents had used it. The 4 components used most frequently were the basic generalist competencies (used by 83% of those familiar with the Guide), learning objectives for these competencies (used by 83%), learning objectives for training problems (used by 70%), and specific training problems (used by 67%); 74% to 85% of those using these components found them moderately or very useful. The most frequently identified barriers to use of the Guide were insufficient faculty time, insufficient number of ambulatory care preceptors and training sites, and need for more faculty development. About 30% or more of those familiar with the Guide reported that use of the Guide was associated with improved ability to meet clerkship accreditation criteria, improved performance of students on the clerkship exam, and increased clerkship time devoted to ambulatory care. CONCLUSION: This federally supported initiative that engaged the collaborative efforts of the SGIM and the CDIM was successful in facilitating significant changes in the medicine core clerkship across the United States. (+info)
Clinical work sampling A new approach to the problem of in-training evaluation.
(56/962)
OBJECTIVE: Existing systems of in-training evaluation (ITE) have been criticized as being unreliable and invalid methods for assessing student performance during clinical education. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a clinical work sampling (CWS) approach to ITE. This approach focused on the following: (1) basing performance data on observed behaviors, (2) using multiple observers and occasions, (3) recording data at the time of performance, and (4) allowing for a feasible system to receive feedback. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-two third-year University of Ottawa students were assessed during their 8-week internal medicine inpatient experience. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Four performance rating forms (Admission Rating Form, Ward Rating Form, Multidisciplinary Team Rating Form, and Patient's Rating Form) were introduced to document student performance. Voluntary participation rates were variable (12%-64%) with patients excluded from the analysis because of low response rate (12%). The mean number of evaluations per student per rotation (19) exceeded the number of evaluations needed to achieve sufficient reliability. Reliability coefficients were high for the Ward Form (.86) and the Admission Form (.73) but not for the Multidisciplinary Team (.22) Form. There was an examiner effect (rater leniency), but this was small relative to real differences between students. Correlations between the Ward Form and the Admission Form were high (.47), while those with the Multidisciplinary Team Form were lower (.37 and .26, respectively). The CWS approach ITE was considered to be content valid by expert judges. CONCLUSIONS: The collection of ongoing performance data was reasonably feasible, reliable, and valid. (+info)