Supporting formative peer review of clinical teaching through a focus on process.

BACKGROUND: The professional need for development of clinical faculty is clear. Previous scholarship provides insight into the formative potential of peer review in both didactic and experiential settings. Less information exists on a comprehensive peer review process (PRP) designed to support faculty change. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: A clinical faculty PRP was developed and implemented based on input from the literature, stakeholders, and field experts. The process included: 1) self-reflective pre-work, 2) a peer-observation component, 3) self-reflective post-work, and 4) creation of a specific action plan via meeting with an educational expert. The process was assessed by collecting evaluative data from peer reviewer and clinical faculty participants. FINDINGS: Eight of 26 faculty members participated in a pilot of the PRP and formed four clinical faculty-peer dyads. When surveyed, all participants unanimously reported that they would participate in the PRP again. Aspects perceived among most helpful to clinical teaching included peer observation, self-reflection, and meeting with an educational expert. Challenges related to the process included anxiety of peer observation, burden of pre-work, and logistics of scheduling meetings. DISCUSSION: While instruments are important in guiding and documenting the evaluation of clinical teaching during an observation period, this initiative focused on the process supporting the observation and evaluation, in order to optimize the formative feedback received by participating faculty and encourage professional development actions. SUMMARY: A PRP that incorporates preparation, reflective practice, and a meeting with an educational expert may support meaningful faculty development in the area of clinical teaching.

Pilot assessment of patient satisfaction and clinical impact of Medicare Part D in diabetic geriatric patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess patients' 1) satisfaction with their decision to enroll or not enroll in the Medicare Part D program, and 2) clinical status of diabetes before and after decision to enroll in Medicare Part D. METHODS: Patients 65 years or older were enrolled in the study from November 2006 through February 2007. Patients were screened by a clinical pharmacist at their clinician visit and administered a Medicare Part D satisfaction survey. Upon completion of the survey, a retrospective chart review was completed in diabetic patients who were enrolled in Medicare Part D to assess goal attainment of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and blood pressure. Pre-enrollment values were obtained in the 6 months prior to the start of Medicare Part D enrollment (July 1- December 31, 2005). Post- enrollment values were obtained after enrollment was complete for the 2006 year (May 1- October 31, 2006). RESULTS: Results show that 74% (60/81) of patients surveyed were enrolled into the Medicare Part D program, including patients who have dual eligibility. Of the 60 patients who were enrolled in Medicare Part D, 48 patients (80.0%) responded that they were satisfied with their decision to enroll. Clinical outcomes were unchanged from the pre-enrollment to the post-enrollment periods. Mean HbA1c was 7.47% in the pre-enrollment period and 7.25% post- enrollment (differencepre-post = 0.23; 95%CI = -0.28 to 0.73). There was no change in LDL in the two time periods (pre = 79.4 mg/dL; post = 79.7; differencepre-post = -0.25; 95%CI = -13.6 to 13.1). Similarly, there were no significant differences observed for blood pressure. Mean systolic blood pressure was 129.5 in the pre-enrollment period and 131.6 in the post-enrollment period (differencepre-post = -2.1; 95%CI = -7.0 to 2.7). Mean diastolic blood pressure was 70.3 for the pre- enrollment period and 70.7 for the post-enrollment period (differencepre-post = -0.4; 95%CI = -4.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSION: Patients were generally satisfied with their decision to enroll in Medicare Part D. Clinical outcomes were not affected by participation in a Medicare Part D plan. More longitudinal studies are necessary to determine long term impact of Medicare Part D on diabetes management.