Academic Detailing From Medical Students: Part of a Plan to Emphasize Feedback in One Clerkship.

INTRODUCTION: Medical schools have an enduring need to provide ongoing faculty development and to foster educational alliances between teachers and learners, so that feedback provided to learners is both frequent and of high quality. We hypothesized that medical students trained as academic detailers with a mission to increase the emphasis on feedback could serve in this role during our clerkship, while still being evaluated as students in our clerkship rotation. METHODS: The family medicine clerkship at Mayo Clinic School of Medicine launched a revised curriculum in 2016 in which students were taught how they might build an educational alliance with preceptors, were taught characteristics of high-quality feedback, and practiced requesting more useful feedback when initial quality was poor. After utilizing a clerkship-specific curriculum with small group sessions on receiving feedback, and training students and preceptors on the SNAPPs model, students were then directed to request feedback from their preceptors and model successful feedback conversations for preceptors. The study evaluated the medical students' summative evaluations to compare the rate from the preintervention year (2015-2016) and the intervention year (2016-2017) at which preceptors added comments on students' use of feedback. RESULTS: Preceptors' written comments about students seeking feedback increased at about a four-fold rate (74.4% vs 18.8%, P<.001) after implementing a suite of changes to our clerkship curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: Using medical students to change preceptor behaviors was an important part of our suite of interventions. This intervention directed preceptor attention toward our instructional goal of increased medical student feedback.

Impact of Personality Disorder Cluster on Depression Outcomes Within Collaborative Care Management Model of Care.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that having a comorbid personality disorder (PD) along with major depression is associated with poorer depression outcomes relative to those without comorbid PD. However, few studies have examined the influence of specific PD cluster types. The purpose of the current study is to compare depression outcomes between cluster A, cluster B, and cluster C PD patients treated within a collaborative care management (CCM), relative to CCM patients without a PD diagnosis. The overarching goal was to identify cluster types that might confer a worse clinical prognosis. METHODS: This retrospective chart review study examined 2826 adult patients with depression enrolled in CCM. The cohort was divided into 4 groups based on the presence of a comorbid PD diagnosis (cluster A/nonspecified, cluster B, cluster C, or no PD). Baseline clinical and demographic variables, along with 6-month follow-up Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores were obtained for all groups. Depression remission was defined as a PHQ-9 score <5 at 6 months, and persistent depressive symptoms (PDS) was defined as a PHQ-9 score ≥10 at 6 months. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were determined for both remission and PDS using logistic regression modeling for the 6-month PHQ-9 outcome, while retaining all study variables. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients (2.1%) had a cluster A or nonspecified PD diagnosis, 122 patients (4.3%) had a cluster B diagnosis, 35 patients (1.2%) had a cluster C diagnosis, and 2610 patients (92.4%) did not have any PD diagnosis. The presence of a cluster A/nonspecified PD diagnosis was associated with a 62% lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.20-0.70). The presence of a cluster B PD diagnosis was associated with a 71% lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.18-0.47). Conversely, having a cluster C diagnosis was not associated with a significantly lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.42-1.65). Increased odds of having PDS at 6-month follow-up were seen with cluster A/nonspecified PD patients (AOR = 3.35; 95% CI 1.92-5.84) as well as cluster B patients (AOR = 3.66; 95% CI 2.45-5.47). However, cluster C patents did not have significantly increased odds of experiencing persistent depressive symptoms at 6-month follow-up (AOR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.45-2.00). CONCLUSIONS: Out of the 3 clusters, the presence of a cluster B PD diagnosis was most significantly associated with poorer depression outcomes at 6-month follow-up, including reduced remission rates and increased risk for PDS. The cluster A/nonspecified PD group also showed poor outcomes; however, the heterogeneity of this subgroup with regard to PD features must be noted. The development of novel targeted interventions for at-risk clusters may be warranted in order to improve outcomes of these patients within the CCM model of care.

How Preferences for Continuity and Access Differ Between Multimorbidity and Healthy Patients in a Team Care Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Team-based care has become an essential part of modern medical practice. Patient-centered medical homes often struggle to balance the dual competing goals of acute access and continuity of care. Multimorbidity patients may value continuity more than healthy patients, and thus may prefer to wait to see their primary care physician (PCP). METHODS: A total of 1700 randomly selected healthy adults and multimorbidity patients were asked to rate satisfaction with care and presented with 4 acute and 4 chronic scenarios to choose an access and continuity preference in an anonymous mailed survey. RESULTS: In all, 770 responses were obtained. All respondents preferred to be seen 2.5 days sooner for acute appointments. Multimorbidity patients preferred to wait 0.28 days longer for acute issues to see their PCP. Patients who were not satisfied with their care team preferred to wait 0.75 days to see their PCP. Those not satisfied with their PCP choose to be seen 0.38 days sooner by their care team or any physician. CONCLUSIONS: All patients prefer continuity of care with their PCP for chronic disease management and value quick access to care for acute problems. For acute visits, multimorbidity patients prefer to wait longer to see their PCP than healthy adults. Satisfaction also plays an important role in patients' willingness to wait for an appointment with their PCP.