[Response to the urgent need to train family doctors in geriatrics : residency in long term care facilities]. / Réponse à l'urgence de former les médecins de famille à la gériatrie : l'assistanat en EMS.

Family doctors have to provide the geriatric cares needed by an aging population. In particular, the increased complexity of care needs in the population living in long term care facilities (LCTF) raises several challenges. One of these challenges is the adequate training of physicians working in LCTF as well as the next generation. Residency programs in LTCFs for future general practioners has demonstrated their value abroad. We describe here the creation of a residency program in LTCF for family doctors in Canton Vaud. Since its beginning in 2020, the program has not only trained young physicians but has also improved interprofessionality and strengthened the training of other healthcare professionals.

La population vieillissante requiert des soins gériatriques spécifiques auxquels le médecin de famille doit répondre. De plus, la complexification des besoins en soins de la population en établissement médicosocial (EMS) soulève de multiples défis. Un de ces défis est la formation adéquate des médecins travaillant en EMS et leur relève. A l'étranger, l'expérience de tournus des médecins de famille dans des structures similaires aux EMS a démontré sa pertinence. Nous illustrons ici le contexte et la mise en place d'une formation postgraduée en EMS pour les médecins de famille sur le canton de Vaud et présentons un aperçu des bénéfices de ce programme depuis sa mise en place en 2020 : au-delà de la formation de jeunes médecins, l'assistanat en EMS améliore la collaboration interprofessionnelle et contribue à la formation d'autres professionnels de la santé.

Qualitative Evaluation of a Pilot Physician Training Program in Long-Term Care Facilities in Switzerland.

Increasing demand for long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and increasingly complex medical needs of LTCF residents necessitate recruiting new physician graduates and developing programs which provide them with experience and specific skills in geriatric and palliative medicine. We developed an educational program for physicians in training, which combines 1 year of immersion at 20% full-time equivalent with (1) theoretical teaching, (2) clinical exposure under the supervision of a senior LTCF physician, and (3) structured case presentations and debriefing with experienced geriatricians. This article presents a preliminary qualitative evaluation of this program from the perspectives of the trainees, supervising physicians, and public health stakeholders. The program was well accepted by all parties and showed positive effects on trainees' interest in long-term care medicine. Suggestions for improving future programs and their implementation are provided.

Swiss general internal medicine board examination: quantitative effects of publicly available and unavailable questions on question difficulty and test performance.

BACKGROUND: Formerly, a substantial number of the 120 multiple-choice questions of the Swiss Society of General Internal Medicine (SSGIM) board examination were derived from publicly available MKSAP questions (Medical Knowledge Self-Assessment Program®). The possibility to memorise publicly available questions may unduly influence the candidates' examination performance. Therefore, the examination board raised concerns that the examination did not meet the objective of evaluating the application of knowledge. The society decided to develop new, "Helvetic" questions to improve the examination. The aim of the present study was to quantitatively assess the degree of difficulty of the Helvetic questions (HQ) compared with publicly available and unavailable MKSAP questions and to investigate whether the degree of difficulty of MKSAP questions changed over time as their status changed from publicly available to unavailable. METHODS: The November 2019 examination consisted of 40 Helvetic questions, 40 publicly available questions from MKSAP edition 17 (MKSAP-17) and 40 questions from MKSAP-15/16, which were no longer publicly available at the time of the examination. An one factorial univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) examined question difficulty (lower values mean higher difficulty) between these three question sets. A repeated ANOVA compared the difficulty of MKSAP-15/16 questions in the November 2019 examination with the difficulty of the exact same questions from former examinations, when these questions belonged to the publicly available MKSAP edition. The publicly available MKSAP-17 and the publicly unavailable Helvetic questions served as control. RESULTS: The analysis of the November 2019 exam showed a significant difference in average item difficulty between Helvetic and MKSAP-17 questions (71% vs 86%, p <0.001) and between MKSAP-15/16 and MKSAP-17 questions (70% vs 86%, p <0.001). There was no significant difference in item difficulty between Helvetic and MKSAP-15/16 questions (71% vs 70%, p = 0.993). The repeated measures ANOVA on question use and the three question categories showed a significant interaction (p <0.001, partial eta-squared = 0.422). The change in the availability of MKSAP-15/16 questions had a strong effect on difficulty. Questions became on average 21.9% more difficult when they were no longer publicly available. In contrast, the difficulty of the MKSAP-17 and Helvetic questions did not change significantly across administrations. DISCUSSION: This study provides the quantitative evidence that the public availability of questions has a decisive influence on question difficulty and thus on SSGIM board examination performance. Reducing the number of publicly available questions in the examination by introducing confidential, high-quality Helvetic questions contributes to the validity of the board examination by addressing higher order cognitive skills and making rote-learning strategies less effective.

[Wellbeing of the doctor and health of the patient†: for a sustainable family medicine]. / Bien-être du médecin et santé du patient†: pour la durabilité de la médecine de famille.

The health sector is one of the most stressed occupational sectors. In family medicine, the risk is especially high: the prevalence of burnout increased. This article explores four facets of the problem : 1) the elements influencing physicians' satisfaction and well-being at work ; 2) prevention and detection of burnout in doctors ; 3) the impact of the doctors' stress on patient care and 4) the organization of the practice to improve the practitioners' well-being. The elements presented here are a summary of a meeting of physicians engaged in training and practice in family medicine, the objective being to identify ways to promote sustainable doctors in their practice !

Le secteur de la santé est l'un des domaines professionnels les plus exposés au stress. En médecine générale, spécialité tout particulièrement à risque, la prévalence de burnout est en augmentation. Le présent article explore quatre facettes du problème : 1) les éléments influençant la satisfaction et le bien-être au travail des médecins ; 2) la prévention et le dépistage du burnout du médecin ; 3) l'impact du stress du médecin sur la prise en charge des patients et 4) l'organisation du cabinet pour améliorer le bien-être des soignants. Les éléments présentés ici sont un compte-rendu d'une rencontre de médecins engagés dans la formation et la pratique en médecine de famille ayant pour objectif d'identifier des pistes pour des médecins plus durables dans leur cabinet !

Development and validation of a clinical prediction rule for chest wall syndrome in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Chest wall syndrome (CWS), the main cause of chest pain in primary care practice, is most often an exclusion diagnosis. We developed and evaluated a clinical prediction rule for CWS. METHODS: Data from a multicenter clinical cohort of consecutive primary care patients with chest pain were used (59 general practitioners, 672 patients). A final diagnosis was determined after 12 months of follow-up. We used the literature and bivariate analyses to identify candidate predictors, and multivariate logistic regression was used to develop a clinical prediction rule for CWS. We used data from a German cohort (n = 1212) for external validation. RESULTS: From bivariate analyses, we identified six variables characterizing CWS: thoracic pain (neither retrosternal nor oppressive), stabbing, well localized pain, no history of coronary heart disease, absence of general practitioner's concern, and pain reproducible by palpation. This last variable accounted for 2 points in the clinical prediction rule, the others for 1 point each; the total score ranged from 0 to 7 points. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.76-0.83) in the derivation cohort (specificity: 89%; sensitivity: 45%; cut-off set at 6 points). Among all patients presenting CWS (n = 284), 71% (n = 201) had a pain reproducible by palpation and 45% (n = 127) were correctly diagnosed. For a subset (n = 43) of these correctly classified CWS patients, 65 additional investigations (30 electrocardiograms, 16 thoracic radiographies, 10 laboratory tests, eight specialist referrals, one thoracic computed tomography) had been performed to achieve diagnosis. False positives (n = 41) included three patients with stable angina (1.8% of all positives). External validation revealed the ROC curve to be 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.79) with a sensitivity of 22% and a specificity of 93%. CONCLUSIONS: This CWS score offers a useful complement to the usual CWS exclusion diagnosing process. Indeed, for the 127 patients presenting CWS and correctly classified by our clinical prediction rule, 65 additional tests and exams could have been avoided. However, the reproduction of chest pain by palpation, the most important characteristic to diagnose CWS, is not pathognomonic.