Characteristics of Successful Internal Medicine Resident Research Projects: Predictors of Journal Publication Versus Abstract Presentation.

PURPOSE: To identify the characteristics of successful research projects at an internal medicine residency program with an established research curriculum. METHOD: The authors collected data about all research projects initiated by or involving medicine residents from 2006 to 2013 at Baystate Medical Center, using departmental files and institutional review board applications. Resident and mentor characteristics were determined using personnel files and Medline searches. Using multivariable models, the authors identified predictors of successful completion of projects using adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs). The primary outcome was manuscript publication, and secondary outcome was publication or regional/national presentation. Finally, residents were surveyed to identify barriers and/or factors contributing to project completion. RESULTS: Ninety-four research projects were identified: 52 (55.3%) projects achieved the primary outcome and 72 (76.5%) met the secondary outcome, with overlap between categories. Most study designs were cross-sectional (41; 43.6%) or retrospective cohort (30; 31.9%). After adjustment, utilization of the epidemiology/biostatistical core (PR = 2.09; 95% CI: 1.36, 3.21), established publication record of resident (PR = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.14, 2.07), and resident with U.S. medical education (PR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.90) were associated with successful project completion. Mentor publication record (PR = 3.13) did not retain significance because of small sample size. Most respondents (65%) cited "lack of time" as a major project barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Programs seeking to increase resident publications should consider an institutional epidemiology/biostatistical core, made available to all residency research projects, and residents should choose experienced mentors with a track record of publications.

Radiologists' Recommendations for Additional Imaging on Inpatient CT Studies: Do Referring Physicians Follow Them?

OBJECTIVES: Studies have found that recommendations for additional imaging (RAI) accompany up to 31% of index computed tomography (CT) scans. In this study we assessed the frequency with which recommendations are accepted by the referring physician and the impact of AI on case management. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of all index CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis performed on adult inpatients during a 1-month period at a tertiary medical center. Each radiology report was examined for mention of RAI. We used a standardized abstraction tool to review medical records for the indication for the RAI (related to original diagnosis vs incidental finding), the clinician's rationale for pursuing or discarding the RAI, and the impact of the AI on the inpatient treatment plan. RESULTS: Among the 430 scans reviewed, most (57.7%) were of the abdomen/pelvis. RAI was recommended in 67 cases (odds ratio [OR] 15.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.4-19.3) and AI was completed in 24 of 67 cases (35.8%). Factors associated with a recommendation for AI were the presence of an incidental finding (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.7-6.8) and verbal communication of the result to the ordering provider (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.23-3.5). When performed, AI altered the treatment plan 75% (18/24) of the time. Among the 43 cases in which AI was not performed, 34.1% were deferred to outpatient, 13.6% underwent alternative clinical intervention, and 13.6% were judged unnecessary by the primary team. No rationale was documented in the chart for the remaining 38.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite concerns about autoreferral by radiologists for AI studies, we found a lower rate than in many prior studies, which may reflect a change in clinical practice. One-third of these recommendations were implemented and verbal communication was strongly associated with the likelihood of second image ordering. In the majority of the cases, the AI affected patient management. Based on these findings, radiologists should consider calling the ordering provider to increase the likelihood that the primary team will follow their recommendations.

Implementing a resident research program to overcome barriers to resident research.

Internal medicine residents are required to participate in scholarly activity, but conducting original research during residency is challenging. Following a poor Match at Baystate Medical Center, the authors implemented a resident research program to overcome known barriers to resident research. The multifaceted program addressed the following barriers: lack of interest, lack of time, insufficient technical support, and paucity of mentors. The program consisted of evidence-based medicine training to stimulate residents' interest in research and structural changes to support their conduct of research, including protected time for research during ambulatory blocks, a research assistant to help with tasks such as institutional review board applications and data entry, a research nurse to help with data collection, easily accessible biostatistical support, and a resident research director to provide mentorship. Following implementation in the fall of 2005, there was a steady rise in the number of resident presentations at national meetings, then in the number of resident publications. From 2001 to 2006, the department saw 3 resident publications. From 2006 to 2012, that number increased to 39 (P< .001). The department also saw more original research (29 publications) and resident first authors (12 publications) after program implementation. The percentage of residents accepted into fellowships rose from 33% before program implementation to 49% after (P = .04). This comprehensive resident research program, which focused on evidence-based medicine and was tailored to overcome specific barriers, led to a significant increase in the number of resident Medline publications and improved the reputation of the residency program.

The effect of inpatient stress testing on subsequent emergency department visits, readmissions, and costs.

BACKGROUND: Patients with low-risk chest pain are frequently readmitted for evaluation of recurrent chest pain. It is unknown whether stress testing during the first admission for chest pain is a cost-effective means of reducing readmissions. METHODS: Using a hospital administrative database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged ≥18 years admitted under "observation status" to Baystate Medical Center between January 2007 and July 2009 for chest pain without acute coronary syndrome. We compared subsequent emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and costs within 1 year for patients who had a stress test at index admission to those who did not, adjusting for age, gender, race, insurance, and comorbidities. RESULTS: The cohort included 3315 patients. Most (n = 2376, 71.7%) had a stress test during the index admission. Within 1 year, 256 (7.7%) patients returned to the ED at least once with chest pain. Of these, 112 (43.8%) were admitted during their first return visit. In the multivariable model, return visits for chest pain were negatively associated with previous stress testing (odds ratio [OR]: 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5 to 0.9). Once in the ED, however, the risk of admission did not vary by stress test during index admission (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.4 to 1.4). Overall costs, including index admission and follow-up visits for chest pain, were higher for patients with stress testing at index admission. CONCLUSION: Inpatient stress testing reduced subsequent resource utilization in terms of ED visits and resultant readmissions, but the savings were not enough to offset the cost of initial testing.

Outcomes of patients admitted for observation of chest pain.

BACKGROUND: Low-risk chest pain is a common cause of hospital admission; however, to our knowledge, there are no guidelines regarding the appropriate use of stress testing in such cases. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients 21 years and older who were admitted to our tertiary care center with chest pain in 2007 and 2008. Using electronic records and chart review, we sought (1) to identify differences in the use of stress testing based on patient demographics and comorbidities, pretest probability of coronary artery disease, and house staff coverage and (2) to describe the results of stress testing and patient outcomes, including revascularization procedures and 30-day readmissions for myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Of 2107 patients, 1474 (69.9%) underwent stress tests, and the results were abnormal in 184 patients (12.5%). Within 30 days, 22 patients (11.6%) with abnormal test results underwent cardiac catheterization, 9 (4.7%) underwent revascularization, and 2 (1.1%) were readmitted for myocardial infarction. In a multivariable model, stress test ordering was positively associated with age younger than 70 years (RR [relative risk], 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.23), private insurance (vs Medicare/Medicaid: RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.27), and no house staff coverage (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.28-1.50). Of patients with low (<10%) pretest probability, 68.0% underwent stress testing, but only 4.5% of these had abnormal test results. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who are admitted with low-risk chest pain undergo stress testing, regardless of pretest probability, but abnormal test results are uncommon and rarely acted on. Ordering stress tests based on pretest probability could improve efficiency without endangering patients.