Preparticipation Evaluation of the Young Athlete: What an Orthopaedic Surgeon Needs to Know.

The preparticipation evaluation (PPE) is a widely used tool for detecting health conditions that may delay or disqualify athletic participation. The medical interview is the most valuable tool for identifying athletes who may be at increased risk for injury. Physical examination is tailored to identifying cardiac abnormalities or factors that may place an athlete at increased risk for injury. Although practiced in Europe, universal cardiac screening with electrocardiography is not currently recommended in the United States largely due to the high rate of false-positive results. Neuropsychological testing for management of concussion and laboratory testing for sickle cell trait may be indicated in select groups of athletes. Health care providers should view the PPE as a chance for anticipatory guidance and athlete-directed health counseling. Despite widespread acceptance of the PPE, the quality of such examinations varies significantly, which is an area for possible improvement and further research.

Impact of socioeconomic status measures on hospital profiling in New York City.

BACKGROUND: Current 30-day readmission models used by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the purpose of hospital-level comparisons lack measures of socioeconomic status (SES). We examined whether the inclusion of an SES measure in 30-day congestive heart failure readmission models changed hospital risk-standardized readmission rates in New York City (NYC) hospitals. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)-like model, we estimated 30-day hospital-level risk-standardized readmission rates by adjusting for age, sex, and comorbid conditions. Next, we examined how hospital risk-standardized readmission rates changed relative to the NYC mean with inclusion of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-validated SES index score. In a secondary analysis, we examined whether inclusion of the AHRQ SES index score in 30-day readmission models disproportionately impacted the risk-standardized readmission rates of minority-serving hospitals. Higher AHRQ SES scores, indicators of higher SES, were associated with lower odds (0.99) of 30-day readmission (P<0.019). The addition of the AHRQ SES index did not change the model's C statistic (0.63). After adjustment for the AHRQ SES index, 1 hospital changed status from worse than the NYC average to no different than the NYC average. After adjustment for the AHRQ SES index, 1 NYC minority-serving hospital was reclassified from worse to no different than average. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with higher SES were less likely to be admitted, the impact of SES on readmission was small. In NYC, inclusion of the AHRQ SES score in a CMS-based model did not impact hospital-level profiling based on 30-day readmission.

What strategies are appropriate for monitoring children outside of family care and evaluating the impact of the programs intended to serve them?

OBJECTIVES: To strengthen the evidence-base for policy and practice for support of children outside of family care requires effective, efficient and sustainable mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation. Toward that end, two core questions guided a systematic review of evidence: What strategies are appropriate for monitoring the needs and circumstances of children outside of family care? What strategies are suitable for evaluating the impact of the programs intended to serve such children? METHODS: A structured document search and review process was implemented within the context of the U.S. Government Evidence Summit on Protecting Children Outside of Family Care of December 2011. Through successive review phases, initially using structured screening criteria, followed by thematic review by an expert panel, 73 documents were identified for analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of models and strategies indicates that: (1) tools are available for assessment of children's needs, but require refining to accommodate contextual demands; (2) well-designed evaluations are able to identify the influence of assistance; (3) long-term follow-up is crucial to developing a strong evidence-base on effective strategies; and (4) insights into systems-wide monitoring mechanisms are emerging. In addition to describing key components of monitoring and evaluation strategies, findings draw attention to the evaluation of children's resiliency and protective factors, community based monitoring and the role of caregivers, as well as concerns over the stigmatization of children (through data collection methodologies encouraging the 'labeling' of children) and the importance of children's participation. CONCLUSIONS: Fostering a stronger evidence-base to improve protection for vulnerable children requires evaluations that are integrated into program development, use context-appropriate methodologies able to assess intervention scalability and employ more longitudinal designs to explore children's trajectories. Further, future programming will benefit from systems-wide data coordination and international comparisons, research that emphasizes coping and resilience mechanisms, and children's participation in monitoring and evaluation.

Impact of state laws that extend eligibility for parents' health insurance coverage to young adults.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The 2010 Affordable Care Act mandates that health insurance companies make those up to age 26 eligible for their parents' policies. Thirty-four states previously enacted similar laws. The authors sought to examine the impact on access to care of state laws extending eligibility of parents' insurance to young adults. METHODS: By using a difference-in-differences analysis, we examined the 2002-2004 and 2008-2009 Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System to compare 3 states enacting laws in 2005 or 2006 with 17 states that have not enacted laws on 4 outcomes: self-reported health insurance coverage, identification of a personal physician/clinician, physical exam from a physician within the past 2 years, and forgoing care in the past year due to cost. RESULTS: For each outcome there was differential improvement among states enacting laws compared with states without laws. Health insurance differentially increased 0.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.8% to 4.2%), from 67.6% to 68.1% pre-post in states enacting laws and from 68.5% to 68.7% in states without. Personal physician/clinician identification differentially increased 0.9% (95% CI -3.1% to 5.0%), from 62.4% to 65.5% in states enacting laws and from 58.0% to 60.2% in states without. Recent physical exams differentially increased significantly 4.6% (95% CI, 0%-9.2%), from 77.3% to 81.2% in states enacting laws and from 76.2% to 75.5% in states without. Forgone care due to cost differentially decreased significantly 3.9% (95% CI, -0.3% to -7.5%), from 20.4% to 18.2% in states enacting laws and from 17.8% to 19.4% in states without. CONCLUSIONS: States that expanded eligibility to parents' insurance in 2005 or 2006 experienced improvements in access to care among young adults.

Implementing the 2009 Institute of Medicine recommendations on resident physician work hours, supervision, and safety.

Long working hours and sleep deprivation have been a facet of physician training in the US since the advent of the modern residency system. However, the scientific evidence linking fatigue with deficits in human performance, accidents and errors in industries from aeronautics to medicine, nuclear power, and transportation has mounted over the last 40 years. This evidence has also spawned regulations to help ensure public safety across safety-sensitive industries, with the notable exception of medicine. In late 2007, at the behest of the US Congress, the Institute of Medicine embarked on a year-long examination of the scientific evidence linking resident physician sleep deprivation with clinical performance deficits and medical errors. The Institute of Medicine's report, entitled "Resident duty hours: Enhancing sleep, supervision and safety", published in January 2009, recommended new limits on resident physician work hours and workload, increased supervision, a heightened focus on resident physician safety, training in structured handovers and quality improvement, more rigorous external oversight of work hours and other aspects of residency training, and the identification of expanded funding sources necessary to implement the recommended reforms successfully and protect the public and resident physicians themselves from preventable harm. Given that resident physicians comprise almost a quarter of all physicians who work in hospitals, and that taxpayers, through Medicare and Medicaid, fund graduate medical education, the public has a deep investment in physician training. Patients expect to receive safe, high-quality care in the nation's teaching hospitals. Because it is their safety that is at issue, their voices should be central in policy decisions affecting patient safety. It is likewise important to integrate the perspectives of resident physicians, policy makers, and other constituencies in designing new policies. However, since its release, discussion of the Institute of Medicine report has been largely confined to the medical education community, led by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). To begin gathering these perspectives and developing a plan to implement safer work hours for resident physicians, a conference entitled "Enhancing sleep, supervision and safety: What will it take to implement the Institute of Medicine recommendations?" was held at Harvard Medical School on June 17-18, 2010. This White Paper is a product of a diverse group of 26 representative stakeholders bringing relevant new information and innovative practices to bear on a critical patient safety problem. Given that our conference included experts from across disciplines with diverse perspectives and interests, not every recommendation was endorsed by each invited conference participant. However, every recommendation made here was endorsed by the majority of the group, and many were endorsed unanimously. Conference members participated in the process, reviewed the final product, and provided input before publication. Participants provided their individual perspectives, which do not necessarily represent the formal views of any organization. In September 2010 the ACGME issued new rules to go into effect on July 1, 2011. Unfortunately, they stop considerably short of the Institute of Medicine's recommendations and those endorsed by this conference. In particular, the ACGME only applied the limitation of 16 hours to first-year resident physicans. Thus, it is clear that policymakers, hospital administrators, and residency program directors who wish to implement safer health care systems must go far beyond what the ACGME will require. We hope this White Paper will serve as a guide and provide encouragement for that effort. RESIDENT PHYSICIAN WORKLOAD AND SUPERVISION: By the end of training, a resident physician should be able to practice independently. Yet much of resident physicians' time is dominated by tasks with little educational value. The caseload can be so great that inadequate reflective time is left for learning based on clinical experiences. In addition, supervision is often vaguely defined and discontinuous. Medical malpractice data indicate that resident physicians are frequently named in lawsuits, most often for lack of supervision. The recommendations are: The ACGME should adjust resident physicians workload requirements to optimize educational value. Resident physicians as well as faculty should be involved in work redesign that eliminates nonessential and noneducational activity from resident physician dutiesMechanisms should be developed for identifying in real time when a resident physician's workload is excessive, and processes developed to activate additional providersTeamwork should be actively encouraged in delivery of patient care. Historically, much of medical training has focused on individual knowledge, skills, and responsibility. As health care delivery has become more complex, it will be essential to train resident and attending physicians in effective teamwork that emphasizes collective responsibility for patient care and recognizes the signs, both individual and systemic, of a schedule and working conditions that are too demanding to be safeHospitals should embrace the opportunities that resident physician training redesign offers. Hospitals should recognize and act on the potential benefits of work redesign, eg, increased efficiency, reduced costs, improved quality of care, and resident physician and attending job satisfactionAttending physicians should supervise all hospital admissions. Resident physicians should directly discuss all admissions with attending physicians. Attending physicians should be both cognizant of and have input into the care patients are to receive upon admission to the hospitalInhouse supervision should be required for all critical care services, including emergency rooms, intensive care units, and trauma services. Resident physicians should not be left unsupervised to care for critically ill patients. In settings in which the acuity is high, physicians who have completed residency should provide direct supervision for resident physicians. Supervising physicians should always be physically in the hospital for supervision of resident physicians who care for critically ill patientsThe ACGME should explicitly define "good" supervision by specialty and by year of training. Explicit requirements for intensity and level of training for supervision of specific clinical scenarios should be providedCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should use graduate medical education funding to provide incentives to programs with proven, effective levels of supervision. Although this action would require federal legislation, reimbursement rules would help to ensure that hospitals pay attention to the importance of good supervision and require it from their training programs. RESIDENT PHYSICIAN WORK HOURS: Although the IOM "Sleep, supervision and safety" report provides a comprehensive review and discussion of all aspects of graduate medical education training, the report's focal point is its recommendations regarding the hours that resident physicians are currently required to work. A considerable body of scientific evidence, much of it cited by the Institute of Medicine report, describes deteriorating performance in fatigued humans, as well as specific studies on resident physician fatigue and preventable medical errors. The question before this conference was what work redesign and cultural changes are needed to reform work hours as recommended by the Institute of Medicine's evidence-based report? Extensive scientific data demonstrate that shifts exceeding 12-16 hours without sleep are unsafe. Several principles should be followed in efforts to reduce consecutive hours below this level and achieve safer work schedules. The recommendations are: Limit resident physician work hours to 12-16 hour maximum shiftsA minimum of 10 hours off duty should be scheduled between shiftsResident physician input into work redesign should be actively solicitedSchedules should be designed that adhere to principles of sleep and circadian science; this includes careful consideration of the effects of multiple consecutive night shifts, and provision of adequate time off after night work, as specified in the IOM reportResident physicians should not be scheduled up to the maximum permissible limits; emergencies frequently occur that require resident physicians to stay longer than their scheduled shifts, and this should be anticipated in scheduling resident physicians' work shiftsHospitals should anticipate the need for iterative improvement as new schedules are initiated; be prepared to learn from the initial phase-in, and change the plan as neededAs resident physician work hours are redesigned, attending physicians should also be considered; a potential consequence of resident physician work hour reduction and increased supervisory requirements may be an increase in work for attending physicians; this should be carefully monitored, and adjustments to attending physician work schedules made as needed to prevent unsafe work hours or working conditions for this group"Home call" should be brought under the overall limits of working hours; work load and hours should be monitored in each residency program to ensure that resident physicians and fellows on home call are getting sufficient sleepMedicare funding for graduate medical education in each hospital should be linked with adherence to the Institute of Medicine limits on resident physician work hours. MOONLIGHTING BY RESIDENT PHYSICIANS: The Institute of Medicine report recommended including external as well as internal moonlighting in working hour limits. The recommendation is: All moonlighting work hours should be included in the ACGME working hour limitsand actively monitored. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

US public opinion regarding proposed limits on resident physician work hours.

BACKGROUND: In both Europe and the US, resident physician work hour reduction has been a source of controversy within academic medicine. In 2008, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended a reduction in resident physician work hours. We sought to assess the American public perspective on this issue. METHODS: We conducted a national survey of 1,200 representative members of the public via random digit telephone dialing in order to describe US public opinion on resident physician work hour regulation, particularly with reference to the IOM recommendations. RESULTS: Respondents estimated that resident physicians currently work 12.9-h shifts (95% CI 12.5 to 13.3 h) and 58.3-h work weeks (95% CI 57.3 to 59.3 h). They believed the maximum shift duration should be 10.9 h (95% CI 10.6 to 11.3 h) and the maximum work week should be 50 h (95% CI 49.4 to 50.8 h), with 1% approving of shifts lasting >24 h (95% CI 0.6% to 2%). A total of 81% (95% CI 79% to 84%) believed reducing resident physician work hours would be very or somewhat effective in reducing medical errors, and 68% (95% CI 65% to 71%) favored the IOM proposal that resident physicians not work more than 16 h over an alternative IOM proposal permitting 30-h shifts with > or =5 h protected sleep time. In all, 81% believed patients should be informed if a treating resident physician had been working for >24 h and 80% (95% CI 78% to 83%) would then want a different doctor. CONCLUSIONS: The American public overwhelmingly favors discontinuation of the 30-h shifts without protected sleep routinely worked by US resident physicians and strongly supports implementation of restrictions on resident physician work hours that are as strict, or stricter, than those proposed by the IOM. Strong support exists to restrict resident physicians' work to 16 or fewer consecutive hours, similar to current limits in New Zealand, the UK and the rest of Europe.