The triple helix of clinical, research, and education missions in academic health centers: A qualitative study of diverse stakeholder perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Academic health centers are poised to improve health through their clinical, education, and research missions. However, these missions often operate in silos. The authors explored stakeholder perspectives at diverse institutions to understand challenges and identify alignment strategies. METHODS: Authors used an exploratory qualitative design and thematic analysis approach with data obtained from electronic surveys sent to participants at five U.S. academic health centers (2017-18), with four different types of medical school/health system partnerships. Participants included educators, researchers, system leaders, administrators, clinical providers, resident/fellow physicians, and students. Investigators coded data using constant comparative analysis, met regularly to reconcile uncertainties, and collapsed/combined categories. RESULTS: Of 175 participants invited, 113 completed the survey (65%). Three results categories were identified. First, five higher-order themes emerged related to aligning missions, including (a) shared vision and strategies, (b) alignment of strategy with community needs, (c) tension of economic drivers, (d) coproduction of knowledge, and (e) unifying set of concepts spanning all missions. Second, strategies for each mission were identified, including education (new competencies, instructional methods, recruitment), research (shifting agenda, developing partnerships, operations), and clinical operations (delivery models, focus on patient factors/needs, value-based care, well-being). Lastly, strategies for integrating each dyadic mission pair, including research-education, clinical operations education, and research-clinical operations, were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Academic health centers are at a crossroads in regard to identity and alignment across the tripartite missions. The study's results provide pragmatic strategies to advance the tripartite missions and lead necessary change for improved patient health.

The critical role of infrastructure and organizational culture in implementing competency-based education and individualized pathways in undergraduate medical education.

In 2010, several key works in medical education predicted the changes necessary to train modern physicians to meet current and future challenges in health care, including the standardization of learning outcomes paired with individualized learning processes. The reframing of a medical expert as a flexible, adaptive team member and change agent, effective within a larger system and responsive to the community's needs, requires a new approach to education: competency-based medical education (CBME). CBME is an outcomes-based developmental approach to ensuring each trainee's readiness to advance through stages of training and continue to grow in unsupervised practice. Implementation of CBME with fidelity is a complex and challenging endeavor, demanding a fundamental shift in organizational culture and investment in appropriate infrastructure. This paper outlines how member schools of the American Medical Association Accelerating Change in Medical Education Consortium developed and implemented CBME, including common challenges and successes. Critical supporting factors include adoption of the master adaptive learner construct, longitudinal views of learner development, coaching, and a supportive learning environment.

Psychology and learning: The role of the clinical learning environment.

The clinical learning environment for the postgraduate education of physicians significantly influences the learning process and the outcomes of learning. Two critical aspects of the learning environment, when viewed through a psychology lens are (1) constructs from psychology relevant to learning, such as cognitive load theory and learner self-efficacy; and (2) psychological attributes of the context in which learning occurs such as psychological safety and "Just Culture". In this paper, we address selected psychological aspects of the clinical learning environment, with a particular focus on the establishment and sustainment of psychological safety in the clinical learning environment for physicians. Psychological safety is defined as individuals' perceptions that they can speak out in the learning or working context without consequences for their professional standing or risks to their status on work teams or groups. We close with seven critical strategies for use by educators, learners, health systems leaders, and other stakeholders to contribute to a clinical environment that optimizes learning. These dimensions can also provide avenues for future research to enhance the community's understanding of psychological constructs operating in the clinical learning environment.

Concerns and Responses for Integrating Health Systems Science Into Medical Education.

With the aim of improving the health of individuals and populations, medical schools are transforming curricula to ensure physician competence encompasses health systems science (HSS), which includes population health, health policy, high-value care, interprofessional teamwork, leadership, quality improvement, and patient safety. Large-scale, meaningful integration remains limited, however, and a major challenge in HSS curricular transformation efforts relates to the receptivity and engagement of students, educators, clinicians, scientists, and health system leaders. The authors identify several widely perceived challenges to integrating HSS into medical school curricula, respond to each concern, and provide potential strategies to address these concerns, based on their experiences designing and integrating HSS curricula. They identify two broad categories of concerns: the (1) relevance and importance of learning HSS-including the perception that there is inadequate urgency for change; HSS education is too complex and should occur in later years; early students would not be able to contribute, and the roles already exist; and the science is too nascent-and (2) logistics and practicality of teaching HSS-including limited curricular time, scarcity of faculty educators with expertise, lack of support from accreditation agencies and licensing boards, and unpreparedness of evolving health care systems to partner with schools with HSS curricula. The authors recommend the initiation and continuation of discussions between educators, clinicians, basic science faculty, health system leaders, and accrediting and regulatory bodies about the goals and priorities of medical education, as well as about the need to collaborate on new methods of education to reach these goals.

Proposed Performance-Based Metrics for the Future Funding of Graduate Medical Education: Starting the Conversation.

Graduate medical education (GME) in the United States is financed by contributions from both federal and state entities that total over $15 billion annually. Within institutions, these funds are distributed with limited transparency to achieve ill-defined outcomes. To address this, the Institute of Medicine convened a committee on the governance and financing of GME to recommend finance reform that would promote a physician training system that meets society's current and future needs. The resulting report provided several recommendations regarding the oversight and mechanisms of GME funding, including implementation of performance-based GME payments, but did not provide specific details about the content and development of metrics for these payments. To initiate a national conversation about performance-based GME funding, the authors asked: What should GME be held accountable for in exchange for public funding? In answer to this question, the authors propose 17 potential performance-based metrics for GME funding that could inform future funding decisions. Eight of the metrics are described as exemplars to add context and to help readers obtain a deeper understanding of the inherent complexities of performance-based GME funding. The authors also describe considerations and precautions for metric implementation.

Overarching challenges to the implementation of competency-based medical education.

Medical education is under increasing pressure to more effectively prepare physicians to meet the needs of patients and populations. With its emphasis on individual, programmatic, and institutional outcomes, competency-based medical education (CBME) has the potential to realign medical education with this societal expectation. Implementing CBME, however, comes with significant challenges. This manuscript describes four overarching challenges that must be confronted by medical educators worldwide in the implementation of CBME: (1) the need to align all regulatory stakeholders in order to facilitate the optimization of training programs and learning environments so that they support competency-based progression; (2) the purposeful integration of efforts to redesign both medical education and the delivery of clinical care; (3) the need to establish expected outcomes for individuals, programs, training institutions, and health care systems so that performance can be measured; and (4) the need to establish a culture of mutual accountability for the achievement of these defined outcomes. In overcoming these challenges, medical educators, leaders, and policy-makers will need to seek collaborative approaches to common problems and to learn from innovators who have already successfully made the transition to CBME.

Implementing competency-based medical education: What changes in curricular structure and processes are needed?

Medical educators must prepare for a number of challenges when they decide to implement a competency-based curriculum. Many of these challenges will pertain to three key aspects of implementation: organizing the structural changes that will be necessary to deliver new curricula and methods of assessment; modifying the processes of teaching and evaluation; and helping to change the culture of education so that the CBME paradigm gains acceptance. This paper focuses on nine key considerations that will support positive change in first two of these areas. Key considerations include: ensuring that educational continuity exists amongst all levels of medical education, altering how time is used in medical education, involving CBME in human health resources planning, ensuring that competent doctors work in competent health care systems, ensuring that information technology supports CBME, ensuring that faculty development is supported, ensuring that the rights and responsibilities of the learner are appropriately balanced in the workplace, preparing for the costs of change, and having appropriate leadership in order to achieve success in implementation.

Changing the culture of medical training: An important step toward the implementation of competency-based medical education.

OBJECTIVE: The current medical education system is steeped in tradition and has been shaped by many long-held beliefs and convictions about the essential components of training. The objective of this article is to propose initiatives to overcome biases against competency-based medical education (CBME) in the culture of medical education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At a retreat of the International Competency Based Medical Education (ICBME) Collaborators group, an intensive brainstorming session was held to determine potential barriers to adoption of CBME in the culture of medical education. This was supplemented with a review of the literature on the topic. RESULTS: There continues to exist significant key barriers to the widespread adoption of CBME. Change in educational culture must be embraced by all components of the medical education hierarchy. Research is essential to provide convincing evidence of the benefit of CBME. CONCLUSIONS: The widespread adoption of CBME will require a change in the professional, institutional, and organizational culture surrounding the training of medical professionals.

Financing U.S. Graduate Medical Education: A Policy Position Paper of the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine and the American College of Physicians.

In this position paper, the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine and the American College of Physicians examine the state of graduate medical education (GME) financing in the United States and recent proposals to reform GME funding. They make a series of recommendations to reform the current funding system to better align GME with the needs of the nation's health care workforce. These recommendations include using Medicare GME funds to meet policy goals and to ensure an adequate supply of physicians, a proper specialty mix, and appropriate training sites; spreading the costs of financing GME across the health care system; evaluating the true cost of training a resident and establishing a single per-resident amount; increasing transparency and innovation; and ensuring that primary care residents receive training in well-functioning ambulatory settings that are financially supported for their training roles.

Envisioning a Future Governance and Funding System for Undergraduate and Graduate Medical Education.

Funding for graduate medical education (GME) and undergraduate medical education (UME) in the United States is being debated and challenged at the national and state levels as policy makers and educators question whether the multibillion dollar investment in medical education is succeeding in meeting the nation's health care needs. To address these concerns, the authors propose a novel all-payer system for GME and UME funding that equitably distributes medical education costs among all stakeholders, including those who benefit most from medical education. Through a "Medical Education Workforce (MEW) trust fund," indirect and direct GME dollars would be replaced with a funds-flow mechanism using fees paid for services by all payers (Medicaid, Medicare, private insurers, others) while providing direct compensation to physicians and institutions that actively engage medical learners in providing clinical care. The accountability of those receiving MEW funds would be improved by linking their funding levels to their ability to meet predetermined institutional, program, faculty, and learner benchmarks. Additionally, the MEW fund would cover learners' UME tuition, potentially eliminating their UME debt, in return for their provision of health care services (after completing GME training) in an underserved area or specialty. This proposed model attempts to increase transparency and enhance accountability in medical education by linking funding to the development of a physician workforce that is able to excel in the evolving health delivery system. Achieving this vision requires physician educators, leaders of academic health centers, policy makers, insurers, and patients to muster the courage to embrace transformational change.

The development of entrustable professional activities for internal medicine residency training: a report from the Education Redesign Committee of the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine.

PURPOSE: The Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine charged its Education Redesign Committee with the task of assisting internal medicine residency program directors in meeting the challenges of competency-based assessment that were part of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's (ACGME's) Next Accreditation System. METHOD: Recognizing the limitations of the ACGME general competencies as an organizing framework for assessment and the inability of the milestones to provide the needed context for faculty to assess residents' competence, the Education Redesign Committee in 2011 adopted the work-based assessment framework of entrustable professional activities (EPAs). The committee selected the EPA framework after reviewing the literature on competency-based education and EPAs and consulting with experts in evaluation and assessment. The committee used an iterative approach with broad-based feedback from multiple sources, including program directors, training institutions, medical organizations, and specialty societies, to develop a set of EPAs that together define the core of the internal medicine profession. RESULTS: The resulting 16 EPAs are those activities expected of a resident who is ready to enter unsupervised practice, and they provide a starting point from which training programs could develop assessments and curricula. The committee also provided a strategy for the use of these EPAs in competency-based evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: These EPAs are intended to serve as a starting point or guide for program directors to begin developing meaningful, work-based assessments that inform the evaluation of residents' competence.

A Clinical Process Change and Educational Intervention to Reduce the Use of Unnecessary Preoperative Tests.

BACKGROUND: Internal medicine residents receive limited training on how to be good stewards of health care dollars while preserving high-quality care. INTERVENTION: We implemented a clinical process change and an educational intervention focused on the appropriate use of preoperative diagnostic testing by residents at a Veterans Administration (VA) medical center. METHODS: The clinical process change consisted of reducing routine ordering of preoperative tests in the absence of specific indications. Residents received a short didactic session, which included algorithms for determining the appropriate use of perioperative diagnostic testing. One outcome was the average cost savings on preoperative testing for a continuous cohort of patients referred for elective knee or hip surgery. Resident knowledge and confidence prior to and after the intervention was measured by pre- and posttest. RESULTS: The mean cost of preoperative testing decreased from $74 to $28 per patient after the dual intervention (P < .001). The bulk of cost savings came from elimination of unnecessary blood and urine tests, as well as reduced numbers of electrocardiograms and chest radiographs. Among residents who completed the pretest and posttest, the mean score on the pretest was 54%, compared with 80% on the posttest (P  =  .027). Following the educational intervention, 70% of residents stated they felt "very comfortable" ordering appropriate preoperative testing (P  =  .006). CONCLUSIONS: This initiative required few resources, and it simultaneously improved the educational experience for residents and reduced costs. Other institutions may be able to adopt or adapt this intervention to reduce unnecessary diagnostic expenditures.

Playing with curricular milestones in the educational sandbox: Q-sort results from an internal medicine educational collaborative.

PURPOSE: In competency-based medical education, the focus of assessment is on learner demonstration of predefined outcomes or competencies. One strategy being used in internal medicine (IM) is applying curricular milestones to assessment and reporting milestones to competence determination. The authors report a practical method for identifying sets of curricular milestones for assessment of a landmark, or a point where a resident can be entrusted with increased responsibility. METHOD: Thirteen IM residency programs joined in an educational collaborative to apply curricular milestones to training. The authors developed a game using Q-sort methodology to identify high-priority milestones for the landmark "Ready for indirect supervision in essential ambulatory care" (EsAMB). During May to December 2010, the programs'ambulatory faculty participated in the Q-sort game to prioritize 22 milestones for EsAMB. The authors analyzed the data to identify the top 8 milestones. RESULTS: In total, 149 faculty units (1-4 faculty each) participated. There was strong agreement on the top eight milestones; six had more than 92% agreement across programs, and five had 75% agreement across all faculty units. During the Q-sort game, faculty engaged in dynamic discussion about milestones and expressed interest in applying the game to other milestones and educational settings. CONCLUSIONS: The Q-sort game enabled diverse programs to prioritize curricular milestones with interprogram and interparticipant consistency. A Q-sort exercise is an engaging and playful way to address milestones in medical education and may provide a practical first step toward using milestones in the real-world educational setting.

Physician performance assessment: prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Given the rising burden of healthcare costs, both patients and healthcare purchasers are interested in discerning which physicians deliver quality care. We proposed a methodology to assess physician clinical performance in preventive cardiology care, and determined a benchmark for minimally acceptable performance. We used data on eight evidence-based clinical measures from 811 physicians that completed the American Board of Internal Medicine's Preventive Cardiology Practice Improvement Module(SM) to form an overall composite score for preventive cardiology care. An expert panel of nine internists/cardiologists skilled in preventive care for cardiovascular disease used an adaptation of the Angoff standard-setting method and the Dunn-Rankin method to create the composite and establish a standard. Physician characteristics were used to examine the validity of the inferences made from the composite scores. The mean composite score was 73.88 % (SD = 11.88 %). Reliability of the composite was high at 0.87. Specialized cardiologists had significantly lower composite scores (P = 0.04), while physicians who reported spending more time in primary, longitudinal, and preventive consultative care had significantly higher scores (P = 0.01), providing some evidence of score validity. The panel established a standard of 47.38 % on the composite measure with high classification accuracy (0.98). Only 2.7 % of the physicians performed below the standard for minimally acceptable preventive cardiovascular disease care. Of those, 64 % (N = 14) were not general cardiologists. Our study presents a psychometrically defensible methodology for assessing physician performance in preventive cardiology while also providing relative feedback with the hope of heightening physician awareness about deficits and improving patient care.

Early feedback on the use of the internal medicine reporting milestones in assessment of resident performance.

BACKGROUND: The educational milestones were designed as a criterion-based framework for assessing resident progression on the 6 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies. OBJECTIVE: We obtained feedback on, and assessed the construct validity and perceived feasibility and utility of, draft Internal Medicine Milestones for Patient Care and Systems-Based Practice. METHODS: All participants in our mixed-methods study were members of competency committees in internal medicine residency programs. An initial survey assessed participant and program demographics; focus groups obtained feedback on the draft milestones and explored their perceived utility in resident assessment, and an exit survey elicited input on the value of the draft milestones in resident assessment. Surveys were tabulated using descriptive statistics. Conventional content analysis method was used to assess the focus group data. RESULTS: Thirty-four participants from 17 programs completed surveys and participated in 1 of 6 focus groups. Overall, the milestones were perceived as useful in formative and summative assessment of residents. Participants raised concerns about the length and complexity of some draft milestones and suggested specific changes. The focus groups also identified a need for faculty development. In the exit survey, most participants agreed that the Patient Care and Systems-Based Practice Milestones would help competency committees assess trainee progress toward independent practice. CONCLUSIONS: Draft reporting milestones for 2 competencies demonstrated significant construct validity in both the content and response process and the perceived utility for the assessment of resident performance. To ensure success, additional feedback from the internal medicine community and faculty development will be necessary.

The role of physician engagement on the impact of the hospital-based practice improvement module (PIM).

BACKGROUND: Physicians play an important role in hospital quality improvement (QI) activities. The Hospital-Based Practice Improvement Module (Hospital PIM) is a web-based assessment tool designed by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) to facilitate physician involvement in QI as a part of maintaining certification. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to explore the impact of the Hospital PIM on physicians participating in hospital-based QI. DESIGN: Qualitative design consisting of semistructured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: A purposeful sample of 21 early-completers of the Hospital PIM. MEASUREMENTS: Grounded-theory analysis was used to analyze transcripts of the semistructured telephone interviews. RESULTS: Physician completers of the Hospital PIM describe the impact in a variety of ways, including new learning about QI principles and activities, added value to their practice, and enhanced QI experience. An emerging theme was the mediating role of physician engagement in relation to the overall impact of the Hospital PIM. Four case studies illustrate these findings. Facilitators and barriers that influence the overall experience of the PIM are described. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of completing the Hospital PIM is mediated by the degree of physician engagement with the QI process. Physicians who become engaged with the Hospital PIM and QI process may be more likely to report successful experiences in implementing QI activities in hospital settings than those who do not become engaged.