RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controlled by timely detection of infected patients using a nasopharyngeal (NP) swab test, followed by isolation and treatment. One challenge encountered with NP swab collection was to train healthcare providers (HCPs) with different training backgrounds and experience for collecting NP swab specimens across Nebraska, including a sizeable rural area. In-person training for NP swab collection skills was challenging due to social distancing. We developed a Just-In-Time-Online Training (JITOT) and delivered it using Facebook Live (TM) to meet our HCPs' training needs. METHODS: Online training was held on April 21, 2020, and attended by 453 HCPs. A quasi-experimental study based on a survey and a multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ) was conducted to evaluate its effectiveness in improving the participants' knowledge and attitudes. RESULTS: Group mean knowledge score increased from a pre-test score of 57%-95% in the post-test showing a large effect size (Hedges' g = 0.976877). On a five-point Likert scale, the majority (86.21%) of the survey respondents agreed/strongly agreed that this training increased their overall comfort for nasal swab specimen collection as compared to their pre-training comfort (37.93%) with this procedure. The majority of respondents (96.55%) in the post-training evaluation agreed/strongly agreed that "the delivery method was appropriate." CONCLUSION: A JITOT session is helpful to teach, demonstrate, clarify doubts, and improve the knowledge and comfort of the participants. It can be quickly delivered using a free social media platform for broader outreach during public health emergencies.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Patient care delivered by residents is an educational opportunity to foster autonomy. These services, however, may not be billed without direct faculty supervision. This quality improvement project analyzes descriptive data, procedures, and billing from an academic otolaryngology-head and neck surgery department's inpatient consult service. METHODS: This prospective cohort study collected descriptive and billing data on all consults over 30 consecutive days. Data collected described bedside procedures and operative interventions. Encounters were Current Procedural Terminology coded and equivalent work relative value unit (wRVU) calculated. Codes submitted for billing were reviewed to identify opportunities for inpatient billing improvement. RESULTS: Ninety-eight new consults were included, and 105 bedside procedures were performed. Flexible laryngoscopy (n = 27), I&D (incision and drainage; n = 11), and suturing (n = 11) were the most performed bedside procedures. Operative intervention was required in 15 encounters. The inpatient consult team provided the equivalent of 391.39 wRVU. Seventy-three percent of operative compared to 3% of bedside procedures were submitted for billing. DISCUSSION: The productivity of our team approximated 61.8% of a full-time general otolaryngologist but with decreased billing submissions. Balance between resident autonomy, education, quality patient care, and the ability to capture service revenue is complex. Strategies other institutions have used to capture missed billing opportunities have included a hospitalist model, mid-level providers, and resident billing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study characterizes an academic inpatient consult service. Results describe a case for improving the structure of the inpatient consult service, caution that studies collecting data via department billing may underrepresent services, and suggest alternative service structures to overcome identified billing limitations.
