Reframing morning report: Cognitive simulation in a safe space.

BACKGROUND: Various purposes for morning report (MR), in addition to education, have been cited in the literature. Learners can find traditional MR challenging secondary to a perceived lack of psychological safety, the sense that they are being evaluated. Despite the recognition of unsafe learning environments, there is a paucity of literature on how to promote psychological safety in the MR setting. APPROACH: Our aim was to create an MR format utilizing scientifically proven teaching strategies to enhance its educational value. The creation of a safe learning environment was at the forefront of this initiative. Using Kern's six steps of curriculum development, we describe one institution's experience in reframing the morning report experience. RESULTS: We conducted a pilot trial of the new MR with 35 paediatric residents beginning in July 2020 and followed the resident experience over 2 years. The primary outcome was attitudinal data as measured via a Likert scale. We found that by the second-year post-curricular implementation, greater than 50% of residents were less hesitant to participate in conference, increased their practice of retrieval and perceived feeling more prepared for examinations as the curriculum progressed. IMPLICATIONS: We believe the use of proven teaching strategies based in the cognitive psychology of learning can enhance the quality of education. Furthermore, we believe that central to the success of learning is the perception that the classroom is a safe space to be wrong. This model can serve as a steppingstone for institutions that look to improve their MR series.

Primary care outreach and decision counseling for lung cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening rates are very low despite a level B recommendation from the United States Preventive Services Task Force since 2013 and clear evidence that lung cancer screening reduces mortality. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening reimbursement. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of an SDM intervention on lung cancer screening in primary care. METHODS: The study design was a single-arm clinical trial design. The intervention included phone contact outside of a primary care visit and the use of the Decision Counseling Program ®, an online interactive decision aid focused on determining the factors which influence patients to screen or not screen, prioritizing those factors, and determining a decision preference score. The primary outcome was the completion of low-dose computed tomography scan (LDCT) 1 year after the SDM session compared in participants versus nonparticipants. RESULTS: From six practices, there were 1359 potentially eligible patients in electronic medical record data, and 336 were reached to assess eligibility criteria. A total of 80 patients consented to be in the study, 64 completed a decision counseling session and 16 did not complete a session. Among the 64 people who agreed to have decision counseling, 45% had LDCT, higher than typically seen in routine clinical practice. Although not a comparable group, among the 16 people who declined decision counseling, none had LDCT. CONCLUSIONS: Decision counseling is a promising intervention that might support SDM in the context of improving uptake of lung cancer screening in primary care. However, further, larger studies are needed.

Training Academic and Community Investigator Teams for Community-Engaged Research: Program Development, Implementation, Evaluation and Replication.

BACKGROUND: Community-engaged research (CEnR) is an approach to conducting research that actively involves both academic and community partners. Yet many academic researchers have limited knowledge of emerging science and processes for effectively engaging communities and community members are often subjects of research with limited knowledge and participation in the development and implementation of research. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to explore two CEnR research training programs, both funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH), for the explicit purpose of facilitating translational science. South Carolina developed the initial program that served as a model for the Delaware program. METHODS: Information is presented about how these two programs recruit, develop, and support academic and community partnerships, as well as how each uses mentorship, funding, and structured training programs for successful CEnR with an emphasis on community-based participatory research (CBPR). The development of each program, the funding source, selection process, team requirements and expectations, educational content, evaluation and outcomes are described. RESULTS: Both programs have increased the number and quality of community-engaged researchers, with 40 academic and community dyad partnerships participating in the training and successfully completing pilot projects. Evaluations reveal the development of effective academic- community partnerships for research with successful dissemination and return on investment (ROI) ranging from $9.72 to $41.59 for each dollar invested in the projects. CONCLUSIONS: Research teams have demonstrated improvements in developing and using CEnR and CBPR approaches. These intermediate measures of success demonstrate the need for similar programs that provide training, preparation, and support to those interested in CEnR.

Telephone-Based Shared Decision-making for Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care.

The national rate of  lung cancer screening, approximately 3-5%, is too low and strategies which include shared decision-making and increase screening are needed. A feasibility study in one large primary care practice of telephone-based delivery of decision support via an online tool, the Decision Counseling Program© (DCP) was administered to patients eligible for lung cancer screening according to USPSTF screening guidelines. We collected data on demographics, decisional conflict, and conducted chart audits to ascertain screening. From electronic medical record data, we identified 829 age-eligible current or former smokers. Of the 297 individuals reached, 54 were eligible and 28 were recruited to the study and 20 underwent the DCP© intervention. Participants in the intervention were more likely to complete low-dose CT scans at 90 days. Current smokers were less likely to complete the DCP. Women were less likely to complete LDCT. This non-persuasive, high-quality shared decision-making intervention significantly increased lung cancer screening and was feasible in real-world clinical care. This intervention offers a promising model whereby patients can be supported in a decision, based on their values and beliefs while also supporting gains in lung cancer screening.

Hurricane Irma Impact on the Inpatient Population at a Tertiary Children's Hospital in Florida.

Hurricane Irma resulted in the evacuation of 6.3 million people in Florida in September, 2017. Our tertiary Children's Hospital activated our incident command center (ICC) 24 hours before storm landfall, and preparations were made to accommodate vulnerable pediatric patients (VPP) or children with medical complexity. Our ICC was active for 92 hours and the hospital was staffed with 467 associates and 40 physicians. Urgent operative and interventional radiology procedures were performed during the storm. Thirteen patients were transferred to our facility and 13 VPP were sheltered. During the lockdown period, our facility operated at 90 per cent capacity inclusive of VPP. Personnel were used in critical areas in the hospital, independent of their base units. There were no adverse outcomes or complications. Timely activation of ICC and deployment of Team A 24 hours before storm hit allowed for safe hospital operations. Planning for the inflow of patients is imperative to allow for preemptive deployment of staff and resources for inpatients, transfers, emergency room admissions, and VPP. VPP should be monitored regionally as they will consume hospital resources during natural disasters and must be accounted for to allow for safe and effective care delivery for all patients.

The Accuracy of Trigger Tools to Detect Preventable Adverse Events in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To understand the ability of trigger tools to detect preventable adverse events (pAEs) in the primary care outpatient setting using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's (IHI) Outpatient Adverse Event Trigger Tool (IHI Tool). METHODS: The OVID MEDLINE and OVID MEDLINE In-process and non-Indexed citations databases were queried using controlled vocabulary and Medical Subject Headings related to the concepts "primary care" and "adverse events." Included articles were conducted in the outpatient setting, used at least 1 of the triggers identified in the IHI Tool, and identified pAEs of any type. Articles were selected for inclusion based first on assessment of titles then abstracts by 2 trained reviewers independently, followed by full text review by 2 authors. RESULTS: Our search identified 6435 unique articles, and we included 15 in our review. The most common studied trigger was laboratory abnormalities. The most common pAEs were medication errors followed by unplanned hospitalizations. The effectiveness of triggers in identifying AEs varied widely. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient data on the IHI Tool and its use to identify pAEs in the general real-world outpatient setting. Health care providers of the primary care setting may benefit from better trigger tools and other methods to help them detect pAEs. More research is needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of trigger tools to reduce barriers of cost and time and improve patient safety.

Improving Patient Safety: Common Outpatient Medical Errors.

Medical errors are common and can lead to patient harm and death. Most research on errors has focused on inpatient care, yet errors are at least as common in the outpatient setting and likely are underreported. Common types of errors in the outpatient setting are diagnostic, drug, and testing errors. The most effective specific interventions for reducing errors in the outpatient setting remain unknown. Considering the current lack of data, the authors recommend a quality improvement approach to understanding local factors in patient safety. Appropriate education and training of all staff members in their roles in patient safety is an important aspect of any program to reduce errors, though these measures rarely are sufficient on their own. Creation of a culture of safety, use of adequate systems and policies for reporting and identifying errors, and use of technologies to prevent errors also are important.

Improving Patient Safety: Improving Communication.

Communication among physicians, staff, and patients is a critical element in patient safety. Effective communication skills can be taught and improved through training and awareness. The practice of family medicine allows for long-term relationships with patients, which affords opportunities for ongoing, high-quality communication. There are many barriers to effective communication, including patient factors, clinician factors, and system factors, but tools and strategies exist to address these barriers, improve communication, and engage patients in their care. Use of universal precautions for health literacy, appropriate medical interpreters, and shared decision-making are evidence-based tools that improve communication and increase patient safety.

Improving Patient Safety: Prevention of Hospital Readmission.

Identifying and preventing avoidable hospital admissions have become cornerstone quality metrics that influence reimbursement and provision of quality care. Many initiatives focus on improving communication with other clinicians and patients, coordinating care after discharge, and improving care quality during the initial admission to prevent future readmissions. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services define a readmission as an admission to any acute care hospital for any reason within 30 days of discharge from an acute care hospital. Certain risk factors can indicate the need for targeted intervention to prevent readmission. Several risk stratification screening tools have been developed to assist clinicians in identifying at-risk patients for early intervention. However, the evidence supporting the accuracy and reliability of these tools remains limited.

Improving Patient Safety: Care Transitions.

Care transitions are times of high risk of harm to patients. The transition from hospital care to outpatient care is perhaps the most well-studied transition and is encountered commonly in the family medicine setting. For discharge transitions, several hospital-based interventions for patients with major diagnoses have resulted in improvements in readmission rates, costs, and patient satisfaction. Prompt scheduling of a follow-up appointment with patients after discharge is crucial. Key issues to consider in the first post-discharge appointment include drug reconciliation and follow-up of any pending tests and results. In the outpatient setting, establishing working relationships with hospital physicians and consultants, educating patients to notify physicians of admissions to hospitals or other care facilities, and educating patients to bring current drug lists to appointments can improve care transitions. Physicians now can receive greater reimbursement for transitional care management services using new CPT codes.

Strategies to Engage Community Partners in Research used by Delaware-CTR ACCEL.

Community-engagement is a key step in conducting research which is impactful for patients and communities. The Delaware Clinical and Translational Research (DE-CTR), Accelerating Clinical and Translational Research (ACCEL) program has implemented several successful approaches to engage our community, and to educate and motivate our researchers in this area. Increased participation in community-engaged research and community-based participatory research was accomplished through DE-CTR/ACCEL using multiple methods detailed in this manuscript. The community engagement infrastructure has fostered community involvement in translational research including capacity development, implementation, evaluation and dissemination. Academic-community partnerships for research, such as those implemented in ACCEL will be crucial to addressing health disparities and health priorities.

Cost-effectiveness of a standard intervention versus a navigated intervention on colorectal cancer screening use in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective but underused. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a mailed standard intervention (SI) and tailored navigation interventions (TNIs) to increase CRC screening use in the context of a randomized trial among primary care patients. METHODS: Participants (n = 945) were randomized either to a usual care control group (n = 317), to an SI group (n = 316), or to a TNI group (n = 312). The SI group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests irrespective of baseline preference. TNI group participants were sent instructions for scheduling a colonoscopy, a stool blood test, or both based on their test preference, as determined at baseline; then, they received a navigation telephone call. Activity cost estimation was used to determine the cost of each intervention and to compute incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Statistical uncertainty within the base case was assessed with 95% confidence intervals derived from net benefit regression analysis. The effects of uncertain parameters, such as the cost of planning, training, and involvement of those receiving "investigator salaries," were assessed with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Program costs of the SI were $167 per participant. The average cost of the TNI was $289 per participant. CONCLUSIONS: The TNI was more effective than the SI but substantially increased the cost per additional individual screened. Decision-makers need to consider cost structure, level of planning, and training required to implement these 2 intervention strategies and their willingness to pay for additional individuals screened to determine whether a tailored navigation would be justified and feasible.

Primary care practices' perceived constraints to engaging in research: the importance of context and 'Flow'.

AIM: The primary purpose of this study is to understand primary care practices' perceived constraints to engaging in research from micro-, meso-, and macro-level perspectives. BACKGROUND: Past research has spotlighted various barriers and hurdles that primary care practices face when attempting to engage in research efforts; yet a majority of this research has focused exclusively on micro- (physician-specific) and meso-level (practice-specific) factors. Minimal attention has been paid to the context - the more macro-level issues such as how these barriers relate to primary care practices' role within the dominant payment/reimbursement model of U.S. health-care system. METHODS: Semi-structured focus groups were conducted in five U.S. practices, all owned by an independent academic medical center. Each had participated in at least one research study but were not part of a practice-based research network or affiliated with a medical school. Data were analyzed using NVIVO-9 by using a multistep coding process. Findings The perceived constraints offered by the participants echoed those featured in previous studies. Secondary analyses of the interconnected nature of these factors highlighted a valuable and sensitive 'Flow' that is evident at the individual, interaction, and organizational levels of primary care practice. Engaging in research appears to pose a significant threat to the outcomes of Flow (i.e., revenue, patient health outcomes, and the overall well-being of the practice). It is posited that the risk of not meeting expected productivity-based outcomes, which appear to be dictated by current dominant reimbursement models, frames the overall process of research-related decision making in primary care. Within the funding/reimbursement models of the US health-care system, engaging in research does not appear to be advantageous for primary care practices.

Evaluation of educational interventions for three lesser-known illnesses.

BACKGROUND: Lesser known illnesses (LKI) such as hemochromatosis, celiac disease, and Lyme disease are likely to be under-diagnosed due to the often varied and sometimes vague symptoms and lack of familiarity with testing. Insufficient testing and diagnoses of these LKI could result in poor outcomes for patients and unnecessary costs. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of educational campaigns designed to inform physicians about the symptoms of LKIs and the basis to test patients for the diseases. METHODS: A multi-level educational intervention was designed and conducted. The prevalence rate of testing, diagnosis, and the ratio of diagnoses to testing (D/T ratio) for hemochromatosis, celiac disease, and Lyme disease were determined for pre-intervention, intervention, and post-intervention time periods. Using the prevalence rates, ANOVA regression analysis was used to estimate the effect of the educational intervention on clients in Medicare Professional System, Medicare Institutional System, and Christiana Care outpatient data. RESULTS: The educational intervention appeared effective at increasing the rate of testing, diagnosis, and the ratio of diagnoses to tests, within the Medicare Institutional System. Generally low rates of the LKI were observed, with large monthly volatility in testing and diagnosis rates. CONCLUSION: The low yields of diagnosis, represented by small D/T ratios, indicate that considerable financial resources have been employed for testing without increased detection of cases above those that would have otherwise been identified.

A randomized controlled trial of a tailored navigation and a standard intervention in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, controlled trial assessed the impact of a tailored navigation intervention versus a standard mailed intervention on colorectal cancer screening adherence and screening decision stage (SDS). METHODS: Primary care patients (n = 945) were surveyed and randomized to a Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) Group (n = 312), Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 316), or usual care CONTROL GROUP (n = 317). TNI Group participants were sent colonoscopy instructions and/or stool blood tests according to reported test preference, and received a navigation call. The SI Group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests. Multivariable analyses assessed intervention impact on adherence and change in SDS at 6 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome, screening adherence (TNI Group: 38%, SI Group: 33%, CONTROL GROUP: 12%), was higher for intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), but the two intervention groups did not differ significantly (P = 0.201). Positive SDS change (TNI Group: +45%, SI Group: +37%, and CONTROL GROUP: +23%) was significantly greater among intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), and the intervention group difference approached significance (P = 0.053). Secondary analyses indicate that tailored navigation boosted preferred test use, and suggest that intervention impact on adherence and SDS was attenuated by limited access to screening options. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions had significant, positive effects on outcomes compared with usual care. TNI versus SI impact had a modest positive impact on adherence and a pronounced effect on SDS. IMPACT: Mailed screening tests can boost adherence. Research is needed to determine how preference, access, and navigation affect screening outcomes.