INTRODUCTION:Early or mid-career physicians have few opportunities to participate in career development programs in health policy and advocacy with experiential and mentored training that can be incorporated into their busy lives.AIM:The Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) created the Leadership in Health Policy (LEAHP) program, a year-long career development program, to prepare participants with a sufficient depth of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors to continue to build mastery and effectiveness as leaders, advocates, and educators in health policy. We sought to evaluate the program's impact on participants' self-efficacy in the core skills targeted in the curriculum.SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:Fifty-five junior faculty and trainees across three scholar cohorts from 2017 to 2021.PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:Activities included workshops and exercises at an annual meeting, one-on-one mentorship, monthly webinars and journal clubs, interaction with policy makers, and completion of capstone projects.PROGRAM EVALUATION:Self-administered, electronic surveys conducted before and following the year-long program showed a significant improvement in mean self-efficacy scores for the total score and for each of the six domains in general knowledge, teaching, research, and advocacy in health policy. Compared to the baseline scores, after the program the total mean score increased from 3.1 to 4.1, an increase of 1.1 points on a 5-point Likert scale (95% CI: 0.9-1.3; Cohen's D: 1.7), with 61.4% of respondents increasing their mean score by at least 1 point. Responses to open-ended questions indicated that the program met scholars' stated needs to improve their knowledge base in health policy and advocacy skills.DISCUSSION:The LEAHP program provides an opportunity for mentored, experiential training in health policy and advocacy, can build the knowledge and amplify the scale of physicians engaged in health policy, and help move physicians from individual patient advocacy in the clinic to that of populations.

On January 19, 2020, the first case of a patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States was reported in Washington State. On February 29, 2020, a patient infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) passed away in a hospital in Seattle-King County, the first reported COVID-19-related death in the United States. That same day, a skilled nursing and rehabilitation facility in the county reported that several of its residents tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and that many staff had symptoms compatible with COVID-19. The University of Washington Medicine health system (UW Medicine), which is based in Seattle-King County and provides quaternary care for the region, was one of several health care organizations called upon to address this growing crisis. What ensued was a series of swiftly enacted decisions and activities at UW Medicine, in partnership with local, state, and national public health agencies, to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Tapping into the multipronged mission areas of academic medicine, UW Medicine worked to support the community, innovate in science and clinical practice; lead policy and practice guideline development; and adopt changes as the crisis unfolded. In doing so, health system leaders had to balance their commitments to students, residents and fellows, researchers, faculty, staff, and hospital and health center entities, while ensuring that patients continued to receive cutting-edge, high-quality, safe care. In this Invited Commentary, the authors highlight the work and challenges UW Medicine has faced in responding to the global COVID-19 pandemic.

PROBLEM:University of Washington Medicine (UW Medicine), an academic health system in Washington State, was at the epicenter of the first outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. The extent of emergency activation needed to adequately respond to this global pandemic was not immediately known, as the evolving situation differed significantly from any past disaster response preparations in that there was potential for exponential growth of infection, unproven mitigation strategies, serious risk to health care workers, and inadequate supply chains for critical equipment.APPROACH:The rapid transition of the UW Medicine system to account for projected COVID-19 and usual patient care, while balancing patient and staff safety and conservation of resources, represents an example of an adaptive disaster response.KEY INSIGHTS:Although our organization's ability to meet the needs of the public was uncertain, we planned and implemented changes to space, supply management, and staffing plans to meet the influx of patients across our clinical entities. The surge management plan called for specific actions to be implemented based on the level of activity. This article describes the approach taken by UW Medicine as we braced for the storm.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic initially manifested in the United States in the greater Seattle area and has rapidly progressed across the nation in the past 2 months, with the United States having the highest number of cases in the world. Radiology departments play a critical role in policy and guideline development both for the department and for the institutions, specifically in planning diagnostic screening, triage, and management of patients. In addition, radiology workflows, volumes, and access must be optimized in preparation for the expected surges in the number of patients with COVID-19. In this article, the authors discuss the processes that have been implemented at the University of Washington in managing the COVID-19 pandemic as well in preparing for patient surges, which may provide important guidance for other radiology departments who are in the early stages of preparation and management.

Academic medical centers (AMCs) strive to provide the highest quality of care, but the physicians who provide leadership for quality improvement find the academic environment challenging.1 AMCs and their academic departments need mechanisms for documenting and rewarding efforts and achievements in quality improvement (QI) and patient safety (PS) to recruit and retain physicians qualified to lead and assist with QI/PS.2,3 There are currently few widely recognized mechanisms other than peer-reviewed publications for identifying promotional scholarship in QI and PS.

Despite widespread engagement in quality improvement activities, little is known about the designs of studies currently published in quality improvement journals. This study's goal is to establish the prevalence of the types of research conducted in articles published in journals dedicated to quality improvement. A cross-sectional analysis was performed of 145 research articles published in 11 quality improvement journals in 2011. The majority of study designs were considered pre-experimental (95%), with a small percentage of quasi-experimental and experimental designs. Of the studies that reported the results of an intervention (n = 60), the most common research designs were pre-post studies (33%) and case studies (25%). There were few randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental study designs (12% of intervention studies). These results suggest that there are opportunities for increased use of quasi-experimental study designs.

Background: Complete documentation of patient comorbidities in the medical record is important for clinical care, hospital reimbursement, and quality performance measures. We designed a pocket card reminder and brief educational intervention aimed at hospitalists with the goal of improving documentation of 6 common comorbidities present on admission: coagulation abnormalities, metastatic cancer, anemia, fluid and electrolyte abnormalities, malnutrition, and obesity. Methods: Two internal medicine inpatient teams led by 10 hospitalist physicians at an academic medical center received the educational intervention and pocket card reminder (n = 520 admissions). Two internal medicine teams led by nonhospitalist physicians served as a control group (n = 590 admissions). Levels of documentation of 6 common comorbidities, expected length of stay, and expected mortality were measured at baseline and during the 9-month study period. Results: The intervention was associated with increased documentation of anemia, fluid and electrolyte abnormalities, malnutrition, and obesity in the intervention group, both compared to baseline and compared to the control group during the study period. The expected length of stay increased in the intervention group during the study period. Conclusions: A simple educational intervention and pocket card reminder were associated with improved documentation and hospital quality measures at an academic medical center.

Background: Complete documentation of patient comorbidities in the medical record is important for clinical care, hospital reimbursement, and quality performance measures. We designed a pocket card reminder and brief educational intervention aimed at hospitalists with the goal of improving documentation of 6 common comorbidities present on admission: coagulation abnormalities, metastatic cancer, anemia, fluid and electrolyte abnormalities, malnutrition, and obesity. Methods: Two internal medicine inpatient teams led by 10 hospitalist physicians at an academic medical center received the educational intervention and pocket card reminder (n = 520 admissions). Two internal medicine teams led by nonhospitalist physicians served as a control group (n = 590 admissions). Levels of documentation of 6 common comorbidities, expected length of stay, and expected mortality were measured at baseline and during the 9-month study period. Results: The intervention was associated with increased documentation of anemia, fluid and electrolyte abnormalities, malnutrition, and obesity in the intervention group, both compared to baseline and compared to the control group during the study period. The expected length of stay increased in the intervention group during the study period. Conclusions: A simple educational intervention and pocket card reminder were associated with improved documentation and hospital quality measures at an academic medical center.

In this paper, Stephens et al.1 describe the development, implementation, and outcomes of a protocol to determine which patients presenting to an academic health center emergency department (ED) requesting alcohol detoxification require inpatient admission. Their interdisciplinary group synthesized existing evidence and developed a protocol that recommended admission for patients with a Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment (CIWA) score > 15, or for those with CIWA scores 8–15 and a prior history delirium tremens (DT). Admissions decreased from 18.9/month to 15.9/month post-implementation. (p = 0.037) Complete follow-up was not available for patients discharged from the ED; however; no patient discharged to outpatient treatment returned to the ED within 48 h and required inpatient admission for detoxification. Patient-centered alcohol outcomes, health-related and otherwise (patient costs, arrests, family stress, etc.) were not obtained. There is very limited previous literature. A 2004 algorithm admitted patients based on comorbidities, history of DTs and CIWA score > 8.2 They reported a decline in admissions for DT, but provided few details of patient outcomes. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing inpatient and intensive (daily) outpatient management of acute alcohol detoxification found no difference in patient outcomes.3 Additional studies with more robust outcome information, including more patient-centered outcome assessment, will be needed to determine the optimal protocol for this common problem. There is an increasing need for physicians to lead quality improvement activities; however, physicians engaged in quality improvement (QI) often confront challenges converting those activities into tangible scholarly products.4 Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence Guidelines (SQUIRE) provide an excellent checklist of items for authors to include when reporting QI activities, but don’t include specific recommendations on how to format a report on the development and implementation of a protocol.5 Stephens chose to employ a format that includes methods and results sections for each of protocol development, implementation, and evaluation. Others interested in taking a scholarly approach to protocol development and implementation may find this a useful template to follow.

To achieve sustainable reductions in healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), the University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC) deployed a collaborative, systems-level initiative. With the sponsorship of senior leadership, multidisciplinary teams were established to address healthcare-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and respiratory virus infections. The goal of the initiative was to eliminate these four HAIs among medical center inpatients by 2012. In the first 24 months of the project, the number of healthcare-associated MRSA cases decreased 58%; CLABSI cases decreased 54%. Staff and provider compliance with infection prevention measures improved and remained strong, for example, 96% compliance with hand hygiene, 98% compliance with the recommended influenza vaccination program, and 100% compliance with the VAP bundle. Achieving these results required an array of coordinated, systems-level interventions. Critical project success factors were believed to include creating organizational alignment by declaring eliminating HAIs as an organizational breakthrough goal, having the organization's executive leadership highly engaged in the project, coordination by an experienced and effective project leader and manager, collaboration by multidisciplinary project teams, and promoting transparency of results across the organization.

The Association of Professors of Medicine (APM) is the national organization of departments of internal medicine at the US medicalschools and numerous affiliated teaching hospitals as represented by chairs and appointed leaders. As the official sponsor of TheAmerican Journal of Medicine, the association invites authors to publish commentaries on issues concerning academic internalmedicine.For the latest information about departments of internal medicine, please visit APM’s website at www.im.org/APM.

Understanding Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) documentation and coding rules is challenging for most physicians. To accurately bill for clinical services, physicians must learn a system that may initially seem daunting, but is in fact governed by a small number of straightforward rules. The Evaluation and Management (E/M) guidelines for all service codes specify 3 components: history, examination, and medical decision-making, each with a defined set of elements or characteristics. Service coding is based on the level of care supported by the number of history and examination elements and the complexity of decision making. This article will clarify the guidelines for outpatient clinical services and suggest a practical method of selecting appropriate E/M codes. Because physicians must often choose between billing codes 99213 and 99214 for a visit by an established patient, it will particularly focus on the minimum documentation needed to bill a 99214 code.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a patient-physician agreement instrument predicts important health outcomes. DESIGN: Three hundred eighty patients with back pain were enrolled in a comparison of rapid magnetic resonance imaging with standard x-rays. One month later, patients rated agreement with their physician in the following areas: diagnosis, diagnostic plan, and treatment plan. Outcomes included patient satisfaction with care at 1 and 12 months and functional and health status at 12 months. SETTING: Urban academic and community primary care and specialty clinics. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Higher agreement at 1 month (using a composite sum of scores on the 3 agreement questions) was correlated in univariate analysis with higher patient satisfaction at 1 month ( R =.637, P <.001). In multivariate analysis, controlling for 1-month satisfaction and other potential confounders, higher agreement independently predicted better 12-month patient satisfaction ( β =0.188, P =.003), mental health ( β =1.080, P <.001), social function ( β =1.124, P =.001), and vitality ( β =1.190, P <.001). CONCLUSION: Agreement between physicians and patients regarding diagnosis, diagnostic plan, and treatment plan is associated with higher patient satisfaction and better health status outcomes in patients with back pain. Additional research is required to clarify the relationship between physician communication skills, agreement, and patient outcomes.

CONTEXT:Faster magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning has made MRI a potential cost-effective replacement for radiographs for patients with low back pain. However, whether rapid MRI scanning results in better patient outcomes than radiographic evaluation or a cost-effective alternative is unknown.OBJECTIVE:To determine the clinical and economic consequences of replacing spine radiographs with rapid MRI for primary care patients.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS:Randomized controlled trial of 380 patients aged 18 years or older whose primary physicians had ordered that their low back pain be evaluated by radiographs. The patients were recruited between November 1998 and June 2000 from 1 of 4 imaging centers in the Seattle, Wash, area: a university-based teaching program, a nonuniversity-based teaching program, and 2 private clinics.INTERVENTION:Patients were randomly assigned to receive lumbar spine evaluation by rapid MRI or by radiograph.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Back-related disability measured by the modified Roland questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), pain, preference scores, satisfaction, and costs.RESULTS:At 12 months, primary outcomes of functional disability were obtained from 337 (89%) of the 380 patients enrolled. The mean back-related disability modified Roland score for the 170 patients assigned to the radiograph evaluation group was 8.75 vs 9.34 for the 167 patients assigned the rapid MRI evaluation group (mean difference, -0.59; 95% CI, -1.69 to 0.87). The mean differences in the secondary outcomes were not statistically significant : pain bothersomeness (0.07; 95% CI -0.88 to 1.22), pain frequency (0.12; 95% CI, -0.69 to 1.37), and SF-36 subscales of bodily pain (1.25; 95% CI, -4.46 to 4.96), and physical functioning (2.73, 95% CI -4.09 to 6.22). Ten patients in the rapid MRI group vs 4 in the radiograph group had lumbar spine operations (risk difference, 0.34; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.73). The rapid MRI strategy had a mean cost of 2380 dollars vs 2059 dollars for the radiograph strategy (mean difference, 321 dollars; 95% CI, -1100 to 458).CONCLUSIONS:Rapid MRIs and radiographs resulted in nearly identical outcomes for primary care patients with low back pain. Although physicians and patients preferred the rapid MRI, substituting rapid MRI for radiographic evaluations in the primary care setting may offer little additional benefit to patients, and it may increase the costs of care because of the increased number of spine operations that patients are likely to undergo.

Background. Three previous reviews have reached conflicting conclusions regarding the efficacy of antidepressants for patients with back pain. Objectives. To systematically review the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of patients with back pain and to determine whether there is evidence that outcomes vary between classes of antidepressants. Materials and Methods. Best evidence synthesis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of oral antidepressive agents in patients with back pain. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed included studies with a 22-point methodologic quality assessment scale. Effect sizes were calculated if sufficient data were available. Results. Twenty-two trials of antidepressants for the treatment of back pain were identified, of which seven studies of chronic low back pain met inclusion criteria. Among studies using antidepressants that inhibit norepinephrine reuptake (tricyclic or tetracyclic antidepressants), four of five found significant improvement in at least one relevant outcome measure. Assessment of these agents' impact on functional measures produced mixed results. No benefit in pain relief or functional status was found in three studies of antidepressants that do not inhibit norepinephrine reuptake. Conclusions. Based on a small number of studies, tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants appear to produce moderate symptom reductions for patients with chronic low back pain. This benefit appears to be independent of depression status. SSRIs do not appear to be beneficial for patients with chronic low back pain. There is conflicting evidence whether antidepressants improve functional status of patients with chronic low back pain.

CiNii 国立情報学研究所 学術情報ナビゲータ[サイニィ]. メニュー 検索 …