RESUMEN

Introduction: Substance misuse is a critical social and health care issue, and learning how to effectively screen for misuse and perform a brief intervention is useful for all health care professions. As an intercollegiate, interprofessional group, we developed a mechanism for delivering interprofessional education (IPE) using SBIRT (screening, brief intervention, and referral for treatment) as a tool to identify potential substance misuse. Methods: A total of 1,255 students from nursing, pharmacy, medicine, physician assistant, social work, dietetics, and occupational therapy programs participated in the training and evaluation of this IPE experience over 2 academic years. The training incorporated asynchronous SBIRT training, in-person student role-plays, and a standardized patient (SP) interaction. Results: A significant majority of participants indicated that this IPE experience enhanced their interprofessional skills (91%), was useful for interprofessional development (79%), was relevant to their career (92%), and would benefit their clients (93%). Faculty debrief sessions supported the efficacy of SBIRT as a platform for IPE. Discussion: Students believed that utilizing SBIRT as an interprofessional learning experience enhanced their overall educational experience and assisted with developing interprofessional relationships and that team-based care would lead to improved patient outcomes. Faculty found this learning activity to be effective in developing student insight regarding future professional peers and patient interview skill development through role-plays with peers and SPs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Graduating residents transition their continuity clinic patients to junior colleagues every year, creating a vulnerable transition period for about 1 million patients nationally. OBJECTIVE: We examined a standardized, electronic template for handing off high-risk ambulatory patients by outgoing residents from 7 residencies within a large health care system, and compared handoff quantity and provider satisfaction for handoffs with and without that template. METHODS: Residents graduating in 2011 from 5 internal medicine, 1 family medicine, and 1 internal medicine-pediatrics residency programs in 1 health care system were randomized to a new electronic handoff process with a standardized intervention template or a free-text handoff. Expert reviewers independently evaluated all handoff notes, and providers were surveyed after follow-up appointments regarding use, helpfulness, and overall satisfaction with the handoffs. RESULTS: Fifty-two of 79 residents (66%) participated, performing 278 handoffs. Eighty-four patients (30%, 17 of 57) failed to follow up within the study period. For patients who followed up, providers read 61% (101 of 165) of the handoffs at the time of the visit. No significant difference existed between groups in the satisfaction of the follow up provider or the quality measure of the handoffs in our process. Expert agreement on which features make the handoff "helpful" was fair (κ  =  0.34). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized template did not improve handoff quantity or satisfaction compared with a free-text handoff. Practical handoff programs can be instituted into diverse residencies within a short time frame, with most residents taking part in creating the handoff formats.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: It is unclear why systematic training in end-of-residency clinic handoffs is not universal. PURPOSES: We assessed Internal Medicine-Pediatrics (Med-Peds) residency program directors' attitudes regarding end-of-residency clinic handoff systems and perceived barriers to their implementation. METHODS: We surveyed all Med-Peds program directors in the United States about end-of-residency outpatient handoff systems. RESULTS: Program directors rated systems as important (81.5%), but only 31 programs (46.3%) utilized them. Nearly all programs with (29/31 [93.5%]), and most programs without systems (24/33 [72.7%]) rated them as important. Programs were more likely to have a system if the program director rated it important (p = .049), and less likely if they cited a lack of faculty interest (p = .023) or difficulty identifying residents as primary providers (p = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Most program directors believe it important to formally hand off outpatients. Barriers to establishing handoff systems can be overcome with modest curricular and cultural changes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: End-of-residency outpatient handoffs affect at least 1 million patients per year, yet there is no consensus on best practices. OBJECTIVE: To explore the use of formal systems for end-of-residency clinic handoffs in internal medicine-pediatrics residency (Med-Peds) programs, and their associated categorical internal medicine and pediatrics programs. METHODS: We surveyed Med-Peds program directors about their programs' system for handing off ambulatory continuity patients. RESULTS: Our response rate was 85% (67 of 79 programs). Thirty-one programs (46%) reported having a system for end-of-residency handoffs. Of the 30 that offered detailed information, 22 (73%) formally introduced the program to residents, 12 (40%) standardized the handoff, and 14 (47%) used multiple methods for information exchange, with the electronic health record and oral transfer of information (15 of 30, 50%) the most common. Six programs (20%) indicated they did not offer residents protected time to complete end-of-residency handoffs, and 13 programs (43%) did not identify a specific postgraduate year level for residents to whom patients were handed off. Programs were more likely to have a system for end-of-residency handoffs if another categorical program at their institution also had one (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than half of responding Med-Peds programs have outpatient handoff systems in place. Inclusion of end-of-residency handoff information in the electronic health record may represent a best practice that has the potential of enhancing continuity and safety of care for patients in resident continuity clinics.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The medical literature shows evidence of numerous initiatives to improve inpatient physician handoffs. In contrast, handoffs of ambulatory patients to incoming interns or junior residents at the end of residency are an area of potential concern that has been overlooked. OBJECTIVES: To examine handoffs of high-risk ambulatory patients by outgoing residents to junior colleagues and to compare current practice to a standard handoff process. We hypothesized the intervention would lead to increases in the number and quality of ambulatory care handoffs. METHODS: Fourteen graduating internal medicine and combined internal medicine-pediatrics residents who practiced at an academic continuity clinic were randomized to an intervention or a control group. E-mail instructions were sent asking the intervention group to write a handoff note using the clinic's electronic medical record system. The e-mail included a detailed outline of information to incorporate and highlight features of the electronic medical record that would facilitate the process. The handoff notes of the intervention and control group were independently evaluated and scored for quality using a predetermined point system. RESULTS: Six of the 7 residents (86%) in the intervention group completed 19 handoff notes; none of the residents in the control group completed handoff notes. Most of the handoffs provided a brief paragraph or 2 of background information on the patient and then focused on issues needing short-term follow-up during the coming months. CONCLUSIONS: The standardized handoff process implemented via simple e-mail instructions increased the number of outpatient handoffs at the completion of residency. Further study with a larger number of residents, identification and removal of barriers to the handoff process, and correlation of handoffs to clinical outcomes are key next steps.