Remind Me Again: Physician Response to Web Surveys: The Effect of Email Reminders Across 11 Opinion Survey Efforts at the American Board of Internal Medicine from 2017 to 2019.

For survey researchers, physicians in the United States are a difficult-to-reach subgroup. The purpose of this study is to quantify the effect of email reminders on web-based survey response rates targeting physicians. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 11 American Board of Internal Medicine surveys from 2017 to 2019. We compute aggregate response rates for the periods between weekly email contacts across the 11 surveys, while controlling for survey time to complete, physician age, gender, region, board certification status, and initial exam performance. The overall predicted response rate after six weekly email contacts was 23.7%, 95% CI: (17.1%, 33.0%). Across the 11 surveys, we found response rate for the first period to be 8.9%, 95% CI: (6.5%, 12.2%). We observed a 50% decrease in response from the first to the second period, which had a 4.4%, 95% CI: (3.2%, 6.2%), response rate. The third and fourth response periods yielded similar response rates of 3.0%, 95% CI: (2.3%, 3.9%) and 3.3%, 95%CI: (2.4%, 4.6%), respectively. The fifth and sixth response periods yielded similar response rates of 2.2%, 95%CI: (1.5%, 3.3%) and 1.9%, 95% CI: (1.3%, 2.7%), respectively. The results were further stratified into different levels of participant survey interest, and are helpful for cost and sample size considerations when designing a physician survey.

When worlds collide: Challenges to implementing communication research in community oncology practices.

OBJECTIVE: During a recent trial assessing the effectiveness of an online communication training for community practice oncologists, we encountered multiple barriers. METHODS: We asked oncologists to participate through the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification program. Oncologists collected 25 Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers (CAHPS) surveys from patients and 4 audio-recorded clinic encounters. They then completed either the ABIM Action Plan (control) or the online Study of Communication in Oncologist Patient Encounters (SCOPE) program (intervention). Oncologists collected another 25 CAHPS surveys and 4 audio-recorded encounters as follow-up. RESULTS: We enrolled 146 oncologists in the study. Only 27 completed the study; another 27 actively withdrew, and 94 did not complete the study. We identified four main challenges to participation: commitment discrepancies, burden of research, informed consent, and technology. We introduced efforts to overcome these barriers with success limited by time and resources. CONCLUSION: When conducting research in community practices, investigators must provide significant support, limit burden, increase flexibility, and conduct thorough pilot testing. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To improve patient care, research must translate well into the workflow of actual practices. Assessing our experience, we identified challenges and effective solutions to be used by investigators as they plan and implement future communication interventions.

The Association Between Maintaining American Board of Emergency Medicine Certification and State Medical Board Disciplinary Actions.

BACKGROUND: In certain medical specialties, board certification is associated with a lower risk of state medical board disciplinary actions. OBJECTIVE: The association between maintaining American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) certification and state medical disciplinary actions had not been studied. This study was undertaken to determine if maintaining ABEM certification was associated with a lower risk of disciplinary action. METHODS: This investigation was a historical cohort study using Cox regression. Physicians who did not have a lapse in ABEM certification were compared with physicians who had a lapse to determine the risk of disciplinary action. Lapsing was determined at the expiration of the initial certificate. This study included all physicians who obtained initial ABEM certification from 1980-2005. Additional covariates of interest included the number of attempts on the ABEM Qualifying Examination (1 vs. >1), the geographic region of the physician's residence, and the country of medical school. RESULTS: There were 23,002 physicians in the study cohort. Of these, 3370 (14.7%) let their certification lapse after initial certification. There were 701 (3.0%) physicians with disciplinary events. Lapsed physicians had higher rates of disciplinary actions than physicians who did not lapse (6.4% vs. 2.5%). ABEM-certified physicians who did not lapse were significantly less likely to be disciplined as physicians who let their certificate lapse (hazard ratio 0.50 [95% confidence interval 0.42-0.59]). CONCLUSIONS: The absolute incidence of physicians with a disciplinary action in this study cohort was low (3.0%). Maintaining ABEM certification was associated with a lower risk of state medical board disciplinary actions.

The American Board of Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification Examination and State Medical Board Disciplinary Actions: a Population Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Some have questioned whether successful performance in the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program is meaningful. The association of the ABIM Internal Medicine (IM) MOC examination with state medical board disciplinary actions is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess risk of disciplinary actions among general internists who did and did not pass the MOC examination within 10 years of initial certification. DESIGN: Historical population cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: The population of internists certified in internal medicine, but not a subspecialty, from 1990 through 2003 (n = 47,971). INTERVENTION: ABIM IM MOC examination. SETTING: General internal medicine in the USA. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was time to disciplinary action assessed in association with whether the physician passed the ABIM IM MOC examination within 10 years of initial certification, adjusted for training, certification, demographic, and regulatory variables including state medical board Continuing Medical Education (CME) requirements. KEY RESULTS: The risk for discipline among physicians who did not pass the IM MOC examination within the 10 year requirement window was more than double than that of those who did pass the examination (adjusted HR 2.09; 95% CI, 1.83 to 2.39). Disciplinary actions did not vary by state CME requirements (adjusted HR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.16), but declined with increasing MOC examination scores (Kendall's tau-b coefficient = - 0.98 for trend, p < 0.001). Among disciplined physicians, actions were less severe among those passing the IM MOC examination within the 10-year requirement window than among those who did not pass the examination. CONCLUSIONS: Passing a periodic assessment of medical knowledge is associated with decreased state medical board disciplinary actions, an important quality outcome of relevance to patients and the profession.

Does Having Open Access to Care Improve Patient Experience? A Case-Control Study.

This study investigated whether primary and specialist care practices utilizing open access to care (OA) receive better patient experience scores than propensity-matched control practices without OA. From March 2010 to December 2014, 711 physicians classified as having OA in their practice, indicated by scoring 15 or higher on the OA checklist, were propensity matched to practices without OA. Patient experience was measured with 5 composites: timely care, communication, staff quality, care coordination, and overall physician rating. Minimally important differences in patient experience ratings were calculated between OA and control practices to determine optimal OA checklist scores. OA positively affected most composite domains for specialist practices, except physician rating, but minimally affected primary care practices. Practices scoring 19 or higher on the OA checklist had significantly higher patient-experience scores than matched controls. The authors recommend practices strive for 20 or higher on the OA checklist to see significant improvements in patient experience ratings.

Internists' views of maintenance of certification: a stages-of-change perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Board certification has evolved from a "point-in-time" event to a process of periodic learning and reevaluation of medical competence through maintenance of certification (MOC). To better understand MOC participation, the transtheoretical model (TTM) was used to describe physicians' perceptions of MOC as a sequence of attitudinal changes. METHOD: Data were from a survey of internal medicine (IM) physicians' attitudes toward periodic reevaluation through MOC. An overall importance or decisional balance score was computed for each physician by summing his or her ratings across the 10 quality measures. The decisional balance score was used to classify physicians according to their acceptance of MOC, aligned with the 3 early TTM stages-of-change groups-precontemplation (PC), contemplation (C), and preparation (P)-where PC was least accepting and P was most accepting. Effect sizes assessed whether differences in attitudes toward reevaluation via MOC were of sufficient magnitude to support the TTM principles. RESULTS: The difference in degree of acceptance of MOC between the P group and the PC and C groups was significant (p < 0.001), but the effect size was lower than predicted by the "strong" principle. Resistance to MOC for the PC and C groups was significantly greater than the P group (p < 0.001) and supported the "weak" principle. Physicians' beliefs about how often they should demonstrate performance on quality measures aligned well with the American Board of Internal Medicine's MOC requirements, with the P group believing in more frequent assessments than the PC and C groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Results show that physicians in the Preparation stage had overcome resistance to MOC as predicted by the "weak" principle of the TTM, but their attitude scores about the benefits of MOC were below what was expected by theory. This suggests that the structure of MOC may have made it easier for physicians to overcome barriers to MOC participation but may have lacked adequate resources to promote the benefits of participating in the process. More effort is needed to understand the specific benefits of MOC for reevaluating competencies, how to engage physicians and other stakeholders in the design of MOC, and how to communicate the rationale and evidence to those who are less accepting of MOC.

The comprehensive care project: measuring physician performance in ambulatory practice.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of comprehensively assessing physician-level performance in ambulatory practice. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Ambulatory-based general internists in 13 states participated in the assessment. STUDY DESIGN: We assessed physician-level performance, adjusted for patient factors, on 46 individual measures, an overall composite measure, and composite measures for chronic, acute, and preventive care. Between- versus within-physician variation was quantified by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). External validity was assessed by correlating performance on a certification exam. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Medical records for 236 physicians were audited for seven chronic and four acute care conditions, and six age- and gender-appropriate preventive services. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Performance on the individual and composite measures varied substantially within (range 5-86 percent compliance on 46 measures) and between physicians (ICC range 0.12-0.88). Reliabilities for the composite measures were robust: 0.88 for chronic care and 0.87 for preventive services. Higher certification exam scores were associated with better performance on the overall (r = 0.19; p<.01), chronic care (r = 0.14, p = .04), and preventive services composites (r = 0.17, p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that reliable and valid comprehensive assessment of the quality of chronic and preventive care can be achieved by creating composite measures and by sampling feasible numbers of patients for each condition.

Current yardsticks may be inadequate for measuring quality improvements from the medical home.

Health reform legislation grants authority for patient-centered medical home pilot projects to test changes in the way primary care is provided. There is concern that using a measurement tool to qualify medical homes that is solely based on the presence or absence of "system elements" may miss the point conceptually and lead physicians astray in attempts to transform their entire practices. To find out whether and how practice characteristics explain health care quality, we examined risk-adjusted composite measures of quality for common chronic and acute care conditions and preventive care from 202 general internists working primarily in small primary care office settings. We found that current conceptions and measures of what constitutes "successful" practice systems and care are incomplete, and have limited associations with measures of health care quality. Future research should explore more fully the issues around physician competence, including competence in systems and quality improvement; the interactive nature of clinical practice; and other important system elements not captured by current tools.

Where have all the general internists gone?

BACKGROUND: A shortage of primary care physicians is expected, due in part to decreasing numbers of physicians entering general internal medicine (GIM). Practicing general internists may contribute to the shortage by leaving internal medicine (IM) for other careers in and out of medicine. OBJECTIVE: To better understand mid-career attrition in IM. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Mail survey to a national sample of internists originally certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine in GIM or an IM subspecialty during the years 1990 to 1995. MAIN MEASURES: Self-reported current status as working in IM, working in another medical or non-medical field, not currently working but plan to return, or retired; and career satisfaction. KEY RESULTS: Nine percent of all internists in the 1990-1995 certification cohorts and a significantly larger proportion of general internists (17%) than IM subspecialists [(4%) P < 0.001] had left IM at mid career. A significantly lower proportion of general internists (70%) than IM subspecialists [(77%) (P < 0.008)] were satisfied with their career. The proportion of general internists who had left IM in 2006 (19%) was not significantly different from the 21% who left in 2004 (P = 0.45). The proportion of general internists who left IM was not significantly different in earlier (1990-92; 19%) versus later (1993-95; 15%) certification cohorts (P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: About one in six general internists leave IM by mid-career compared to one in 25 IM subspecialists. Although research finds that doctors leave medicine because of dissatisfaction, this study was inconclusive about whether general internists left IM in greater proportion than IM subspecialists for this reason. A more likely explanation is that GIM serves as a stepping stone to careers outside of IM.

Performance during internal medicine residency training and subsequent disciplinary action by state licensing boards.

BACKGROUND: Physicians who are disciplined by state licensing boards are more likely to have demonstrated unprofessional behavior in medical school. Information is limited on whether similar performance measures taken during residency can predict performance as practicing physicians. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether performance measures during residency predict the likelihood of future disciplinary actions against practicing internists. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: State licensing board disciplinary actions against physicians from 1990 to 2006. PARTICIPANTS: 66,171 physicians who entered internal medicine residency training in the United States from 1990 to 2000 and became diplomates. MEASUREMENTS: Predictor variables included components of the Residents' Annual Evaluation Summary ratings and American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) certification examination scores. RESULTS: 2 performance measures independently predicted disciplinary action. A low professionalism rating on the Residents' Annual Evaluation Summary predicted increased risk for disciplinary action (hazard ratio, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.3 to 2.2]), and high performance on the ABIM certification examination predicted decreased risk for disciplinary action (hazard ratio, 0.7 [CI, 0.60 to 0.70] for American or Canadian medical school graduates and 0.9 [CI, 0.80 to 1.0] for international medical school graduates). Progressively better professionalism ratings and ABIM certification examination scores were associated with less risk for subsequent disciplinary actions; the risk ranged from 4.0% for the lowest professionalism rating to 0.5% for the highest and from 2.5% for the lowest examination scores to 0.0% for the highest. LIMITATIONS: The study was retrospective. Some diplomates may have practiced outside of the United States. Nondiplomates were excluded. CONCLUSION: Poor performance on behavioral and cognitive measures during residency are associated with greater risk for state licensing board actions against practicing physicians at every point on a performance continuum. These findings support the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education standards for professionalism and cognitive performance and the development of best practices to remediate these deficiencies.

A three-part model for measuring diabetes care in physician practice.

BACKGROUND: To assess the psychometric properties of the three components of the Diabetes Practice Improvement Module, to compare reliabilities of composites to individual measures, and to identify associations among practice-based and patient-based measures. METHOD: Data include practice systems surveys of 626 physicians, 13,965 chart audits, and 12,927 patient surveys. Quality composites were identified using factor analysis. Means with reliabilities (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] and Cronbach's alpha) are reported. Associations among patient-based quality measures and practice measures with case-mix adjustments were estimated via hierarchical models. RESULTS: Composite ICCs range from 0.11 to 0.54, and single items range from 0.05 to 0.49. Staff communication, efficiency, care access, and patient knowledge correlate with patient satisfaction (P < .001). Clinical outcomes are associated with clinical processes (e.g., annual foot exam) and appropriate treatment (P < .001). Patient adjusters (e.g., overall health or factors limiting self-care) are important for the models; physician characteristics used (e.g., age, practice size) seem less important. CONCLUSIONS: Composites require smaller patient sample sizes and result in more reliable measures than do individual items. Additionally, the data show meaningful relationships between composites; physician-directed components (i.e., clinical processes and treatments) are related to clinical outcomes, and patients are clearly more satisfied with care if it is easily accessible and if communication about care is good.

Who is maintaining certification in internal medicine--and why? A national survey 10 years after initial certification.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) adopted a framework, called Maintenance of Certification (MOC), for all certifying boards to evaluate physicians' competence throughout their careers, with the goal of improving the quality of health care. The MOC participation rates of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) show that 23% of general internists and 14% of subspecialists choose not to renew their respective certificates. OBJECTIVE: To study U.S. internists' perceptions about the forces driving them to maintain certification. DESIGN: Mail survey. SETTING: A nationally representative sample of certified internists in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians originally certified in internal medicine, a subspecialty, or an area of added qualifications in 1990, 1991, or 1992. RESULTS: The overall rate of response to the survey was 51%. Although 91% of all participants are still working in internal medicine or its subspecialties, this percentage is notably lower among general internists (79%). Of those still working in the field of internal medicine or its subspecialties, approximately half report being required to maintain their specialty certificate by at least 1 employer, but only approximately one third of those who completed or enrolled in MOC report this requirement as a reason for participating. Those who completed or enrolled in MOC do so more for positive professional reasons than for monetary benefits or professional advancement. The most common reasons for not participating are the perceptions that it takes too much time, is too expensive, and is not required for employment. LIMITATIONS: Respondents were volunteers from an early cohort of diplomates entering the program, and those with less positive attitudes may have responded at higher rates. Results are based on self-reported data, and misconceptions about program requirements may have led to some inaccurate responses. CONCLUSIONS: The relatively large percentage of general internists who left internal medicine mostly to work in another medical field explains why rates of MOC participation for general internists seem lower than those for subspecialists (77% vs. 86%). Although positive professional reasons clearly have a compelling internal influence on program participation, it is less clear whether employers' requirements are an equally compelling external influence. Although half of all respondents report that MOC is required by 1 of their employers, only one third of those who participate in the program describe it as a reason for participating.