Training medical providers to conduct alcohol screening and brief interventions.

Although progress has been made in developing a scientific basis for alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI), training packages are necessary for its widespread dissemination in primary care settings. This paper evaluates a training package developed for the Cutting Back SBI program. Three groups of medical personnel were compared before and after SBI training: physicians (n = 44), medical students (n = 88), and non-physicians (n = 41). Although the training effects were at times dependent on group membership, all changes were in a direction more conducive to implementing SBI. Physicians and medical students increased confidence in performing screening procedures, and students increased self-confidence in conducting brief interventions. Non-physicians perceived fewer obstacles to screening patients after training. Trained providers reported conducting significantly more SBI than untrained providers, and these differences were consistent with patients' reports of their providers' clinical activity. Thus, when delivered in the context of a comprehensive SBI implementation program, this training is effective in changing providers' knowledge, attitudes, and practice of SBI for at-risk drinking.

Teaching quality measurement and improvement, cost-effectiveness, and patient satisfaction in undergraduate medical education: the UME-21 experience.

BACKGROUND: The health care system in the United States is changing at an ever-increasing rate. Recent reports by the Institute of Medicine raising concerns regarding rates of medical errors and suggesting the need for reengineering of the health care delivery system have focused attention on the need for quality measurement and improvement. METHODS: We abstracted data from final written reports submitted by 18 Undergraduate Medical Education for the 21st Century (UME-21) schools, as well as other materials available from participating UME-21 schools. Specific curricular innovations developed and implemented were identified. Additionally, senior medical students' responses to the annual Graduation Questionnaire administered by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) were available for analysis. The change from 1999 to 2001 in the proportion of seniors rating instruction in quality assurance as adequate was compared among four groups of UME-21 schools and the other 107 US medical schools. RESULTS: Eleven of the 18 schools specifically addressed the content areas of quality measurement and improvement, including utilization management (27% of schools), cost-effectiveness (45% of schools), use of clinical practice guidelines (73% of schools), and patient satisfaction assessment (45% of schools). Each school developed unique approaches and educational materials pertinent to the content area. Overall, the percentage of seniors rating the relative amount of instructional time devoted to quality assurance in medicine by their school's curriculum as adequate or better rose from 49% to 66% between 1999 and 2001 at the 11 UME-21 schools that introduced initiatives in quality improvement into their curricula. This change was significantly higher than the pattern at other US medical schools between 1999 and 2001, at which seniors' ratings rose only from 43% to 56%. CONCLUSIONS: Curriculum development and implementation addressing quality improvement in medical practice accelerate improvement of students' perception that their education has adequately addressed this subject area. This article summarizes some of the experiences, curricular approaches, successes, failures, and lessons learned in quality improvement by schools participating in the UME-21 project.

UME-21 local evaluation initiatives: contributions and challenges.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The 18 medical schools involved in the UME-21 initiative developed innovative curricula and evaluation strategies. While there was significant variation in how schools approached the evaluation process, there were common methodological issues and challenges affecting the reliability of scores and validity of interpretations regarding outcomes. This paper explores these issues and challenges, using experiences from selected UME-21 schools. METHODS: Four evaluation issues and strategies are discussed: instrument development, study design, process evaluation using formative evaluation methods, and qualitative strategies. Within each discussion, examples from a UME-21 school are presented. RESULTS: The four evaluation strategies offered the flexibility to match local evaluation needs with an effective approach to evaluations. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The school-level evaluation requirements by the UME-21 initiative provided schools the flexibility to design individualized evaluation strategies, yet also encouraged collaboration among evaluators. While this strategy resulted in many successes at the school level, it also served to identify common methodological challenges that can be used as a guide for other schools in implementing and evaluating curricula.

Improving patient care outcomes by teaching quality improvement to medical students in community-based practices.

PURPOSE: As part of the Undergraduate Medical Education for the 21st Century (UME-21) project, the University of Connecticut School of Medicine developed and implemented a quality improvement curriculum. This study examined its impact on educational outcomes and the effect of the students' continuous quality improvement (CQI) projects on the quality of care delivered at community practice sites. METHOD: Seventy-seven second-year students working in groups of two to four conducted CQI projects on diabetes mellitus at 24 community-based primary care practices. They collected baseline data, implemented a results-specific intervention, and re-assessed quality indicators six months later. Students' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs were evaluated using Likert-scale rated items as well as open-ended questions. RESULTS: A total of 513 charts were abstracted for the baseline sample, with 380 charts abstracted post-intervention. Attitudinal data revealed students acknowledged the benefit of outcomes measurement in clinical practice despite their frustration with the tedium of the chart-abstraction process. The rate of documentation of performances of foot and eye exams increased significantly from baseline to remeasurement (51.3% to 70.2%; p <.001 and 26.9% to 37.8%; p <.001, respectively). The mean value for glycohemoglobin dropped from 7.71% at baseline to 7.22% at remeasurement (p <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medical student-driven CQI projects can improve the quality of care for diabetes at practices in which the students participate while introducing them and their preceptors to the process of quality measurement and improvement. Formative input from students should be used to optimize CQI experiences. Using medical students to lead CQI efforts in private practices may represent an underutilized resource to improve the care of patients in community-based practices.