Structure and Funding of Clinical Informatics Fellowships: A National Survey of Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the American Board of Medical Specialties established clinical informatics (CI) as a subspecialty in medicine, jointly administered by the American Board of Pathology and the American Board of Preventive Medicine. Subsequently, many institutions created CI fellowship training programs to meet the growing need for informaticists. Although many programs share similar features, there is considerable variation in program funding and administrative structures. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to characterize CI fellowship program features, including governance structures, funding sources, and expenses. METHODS: We created a cross-sectional online REDCap survey with 44 items requesting information on program administration, fellows, administrative support, funding sources, and expenses. We surveyed program directors of programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education between 2014 and 2021. RESULTS: We invited 54 program directors, of which 41 (76%) completed the survey. The average administrative support received was $27,732/year. Most programs (85.4%) were accredited to have two or more fellows per year. Programs were administratively housed under six departments: Internal Medicine (17; 41.5%), Pediatrics (7; 17.1%), Pathology (6; 14.6%), Family Medicine (6; 14.6%), Emergency Medicine (4; 9.8%), and Anesthesiology (1; 2.4%). Funding sources for CI fellowship program directors included: hospital or health systems (28.3%), clinical departments (28.3%), graduate medical education office (13.2%), biomedical informatics department (9.4%), hospital information technology (9.4%), research and grants (7.5%), and other sources (3.8%) that included philanthropy and external entities. CONCLUSION: CI fellowships have been established in leading academic and community health care systems across the country. Due to their unique training requirements, these programs require significant resources for education, administration, and recruitment. There continues to be considerable heterogeneity in funding models between programs. Our survey findings reinforce the need for reformed federal funding models for informatics practice and training.

Glycemic control mentored implementation: creating a national network of shared information.

BACKGROUND: The Society of Hospital Medicine's (SHM's) Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) program, which, like all MI programs, is conducted as an improvement collaborative, is intended to help hospitals improve inpatient glycemic control in diabetic and nondiabetic patients by educating and mentoring quality teams. METHODS: Hospital quality improvement (QI) teams applied for participation in GCMI from 2009 through 2012. Accepted sites were assigned either a hospitalist or endocrinologist mentor to work through the life cycle of a QI project. SHM's Implementation Guide, online resources, measurement strategies, Web-based Glycemic Control Data Center for Performance Tracking, webinars, interactive list-serve, and other tools help mentors guide these teams through the program. Mentors in GCMI bring expertise in both inpatient glycemic control and QI. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen hospital QI teams were enrolled into the GCMI program in the course of 2.5 years. Of these 114 sites, 90 completed the program, with 63 of them uploading data to the Data Center. Feedback from the sites was consistently positive, with the listserve, Data Center, and mentorship reported as the top three most effective components of the program. Ninety-five percent of respondents stated that they would recommend participation in an SHM-mentored implementation program to a colleague. Participants reported improved leadership skills and increased institutional support for glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital quality teams participating in the GCMI program gained support to overcome barriers, focus on improving glycemic control, network with peers and expert mentor physicians, collect and analyze data, and build quality leaders. The features and structure of this program can be used in other multisite QI goals and projects.

Using a mentoring approach to implement an inpatient glycemic control program in United States hospitals.

BACKGROUND: establishing an inpatient glycemic control program is challenging, requires years of work, significant education and coordination of medical, nursing, dietary, and pharmacy staff, and support from administration and Performance Improvement departments. We undertook a 2 year quality improvement project assisting 10 medical centers (academic and community) across the US to implement inpatient glycemic control programs. METHODS: the project was comprised of 3 interventions. (1) One day site visit with a faculty team (MD and CDE) to meet with key personnel, identify deficiencies and barriers to change, set site specific goals and develop strategies and timelines for performance improvement. (2) Three webinar follow-up sessions. (3) Web site for educational resources. Updates, challenges, and accomplishments for each site were reviewed at the time of each webinar and progress measured at the completion of the project with an evaluation questionnaire. RESULTS: as a result of our intervention, institutions revised and simplified formularies and insulin order sets (with CHO counting options); implemented glucometrics and CDE monitoring of inpatient glucoses (assisting providers with orders); added new protocols for DKA and perinatal treatment; and implemented nursing, physician and patient education initiatives. Changes were institution specific, fitting the local needs and cultures. As to the extent to which Institution׳s goals were satisfied: 2 reported "completely", 4 "mostly," 3 "partially," and 1 "marginally". Institutions continue to move toward fulfilling their goals. CONCLUSIONS: an individualized, structured, performance improvement approach with expert faculty mentors can help facilitate change in an institution dedicated to implementing an inpatient glycemic control program.

2011 John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety and Quality Awards. Mentored implementation: building leaders and achieving results through a collaborative improvement model. Innovation in patient safety and quality at the national level.

BACKGROUND: The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) created "Mentored Implementation" (MI) programs with the dual aims of educating and mentoring hospitalists and their quality improvement (QI) teams and accelerating improvement in the inpatient setting in three signature programs: Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prevention, Glycemic Control, and Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older adults through Safe Transitions). METHODS: More than 300 hospital improvement teams were enrolled in SHM MI programs in a series of cohorts. Hospitalist mentors worked with individual hospitals/health systems to guide local teams through the life cycle of a QI project. Implementation Guides and comprehensive Web-based "Resource Rooms," as well as the mentor's own experience, provided best-practice definitions, practical implementation tips, measurement strategies, and other tools. E-mail interactions and mentoring were augmented by regularly scheduled teleconferences; group webinars; and, in some instances, a site visit. Performance was tracked in a centralized data tracking center. RESULTS: Preliminary data on all three MI programs show significant improvement in patient outcomes, as well as enhancements of communication and leadership skills of the hospitalists and their QI teams. CONCLUSIONS: Although objective data on outcomes and process measures for the MI program's efficacy remain preliminary at this time, the maturing data tracking system, multiple awards, and early results indicate that the MI programs are successful in providing QI training and accelerating improvement efforts.

Redesign of an internal medicine ward rotation: operational challenges and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: In anticipation of the 2011 ACGME duty hour requirements, we redesigned our internal medicine resident ward experience. Our previous ward structure included a maximum 30-hour duty period for postgraduate year-1 (PGY-1) residents. In the redesigned ward structure, PGY-1 residents had a maximum 18-hour duty period. METHODS: We evaluated resident conference attendance and duty hour violations before and after implementation of our new ward redesign. We administered a satisfaction survey to residents and faculty 6 months after implementation of the new ward redesign. RESULTS: Before implementation of the ward redesign, 30-hour continuous and 80-h/wk duty violations were each 2/year, and violations of the 10-hour rest between duty periods were 10/year for 74 residents. After implementation of the ward redesign, there were no 30-hour continuous or 80-h/wk duty violations, but violations of the 10-hour rest between duty periods more than doubled (26/year for 75 residents). Duty hours were reported by different mechanisms for the 2 periods. Conference attendance improved. Resident versus faculty satisfaction scores were similar. Both groups judged overall professional satisfaction as slightly worse after implementation. CONCLUSION: Our ward rotation redesign eliminated 30-hour continuous and 80-h/wk duty violations as well as improved conference attendance. These benefits occurred at the cost of more faculty hires, decreased resident elective time, and slightly worse postimplementation satisfaction scores.