Internal Medicine Resident Experiences With a 5-Month Ambulatory Panel Management Curriculum.

BACKGROUND: Panel management is emphasized as a subcompetency in internal medicine graduate medical education. Despite its importance, there are few published curricula on population medicine in internal medicine residency programs. OBJECTIVE: We explored resident experiences and clinical outcomes of a 5-month diabetes and obesity ambulatory panel management curriculum. METHODS: From August through December 2016, internal medicine residents at the University of Vermont Medical Center reviewed registries of their patients with diabetes, prediabetes, and obesity; completed learning modules; coordinated patient outreach; and updated gaps in care. Resident worksheets, surveys, and reflections were analyzed using descriptive and thematic analyses. Before and after mean hemoglobin A1c results were obtained for patients in the diabetic group. RESULTS: Most residents completed the worksheet, survey, and reflection (93%-98%, N = 42). The worksheets showed 70% of participants in the diabetic group had appointments scheduled after outreach, 42% were offered referrals to the Community Health Team, and 69% had overdue laboratory tests ordered. Residents reported they worked well with staff (95%), were successful in coordinating outreach (67%), and increased their sense of patient care ownership (66%). In reflections, identified successes were improved patient care, teamwork, and relationship with patients, while barriers included difficulty ensuring follow-up, competing patient priorities, and difficulty with patient engagement. Precurricular mean hemoglobin A1c was 7.7%, and postcurricular was 7.6% (P = .41). CONCLUSIONS: The curriculum offered a feasible, longitudinal model to introduce residents to population health skills and interdisciplinary care coordination. Although mean hemoglobin A1c did not change, residents reported improved patient care. Identified barriers present opportunities for resident education in patient engagement.

Utilization Outcomes of a Pilot Primary Care Team Redesign.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of a team-based primary care redesign on primary care, emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) utilization, and new patient access to primary care. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective pre-post difference-in-differences analysis of utilization outcomes for patients on a redesigned primary care team compared to a standard primary care group. METHODS: Within a patient-centered medical home, a pilot team was developed comprising 2 colocated "teamlets" of 1 physician, 1 nurse practitioner (NP), 1 registered nurse (RN), and 2 licensed practical nurses (LPNs). The redesigned team utilized physician-NP comanagement, expanded roles for RNs and LPNs, and dedicated provider time for telephone and e-mail medicine. We compared changes in number of office, ED, and UC visits during the implementation year for patients on the redesigned team compared to patients receiving the standard of care in the same clinic. Proportion of new patient visits was also compared between the pilot and the control groups. RESULTS: There were no differences between the redesign group and control group in per-patient mean change in office visits (Δ = -0.04 visits vs Δ = -0.07; P = .98), ED visits (Δ = 0.00 vs Δ = 0.01; P = .25), or UC visits (Δ = 0.00 vs Δ = 0.05; P = .08). Proportion of new patient visits was higher in the pilot group during the intervention year compared to the control group (6.6% vs 3.9%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The redesign did not significantly impact ED, UC, or primary care utilization within 1 year of follow-up. It did improve access for new patients.

Shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen testing: the effect of a mailed patient flyer prior to an annual exam.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Professional societies recommend that the decision to screen for prostate cancer involves a shared discussion between patient and provider. Many men are tested without this discussion. Prostate cancer screening decision aids increase patient knowledge and participation in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing decisions under ideal circumstances but are often resource intensive and elaborate. There is a need for evaluation of interventions that are low cost, low literacy, and practical for widespread distribution. The authors evaluated the effect of a mailed low-literacy informational patient flyer about the PSA test on measures of shared decision making. METHODS: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing the mailed flyer versus usual care was conducted among 303 men aged 50 to 74 years who were scheduled for annual health maintenance exams in 2 general internal medicine clinics (University of Colorado and University of Colorado Hospital). Charts were reviewed after the visits for documentation of PSA screening discussions and PSA testing rates. Follow-up patient surveys assessed include perceived participation in PSA screening decisions, knowledge of the PSA test, and flyer acceptability. RESULTS: Rates of chart-documented PSA discussions were low with no difference between the flyer and control groups (17.7% and 13.6%, respectively; P = .28). Rates of PSA testing were also similar in both groups (62.5% vs 58.5%; P = .48). Rates of patient-reported PSA discussions were higher than the documented rates but also without differences between the groups (71.8% vs 62.3%; P = .22). The intervention had no effect in the PSA knowledge scores (3.5/5 vs 3.3/5, P = .60). Patients found the flyer to be highly acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: A mailed low-literacy informational flyer was well received by patients but had no effect on rates of PSA discussions, PSA testing, or patient knowledge of prostate cancer screening.