Impact of a medical scribe on clinical efficiency and quality in an academic general internal medicine practice

Background Scribes have been proposed as an intervention to decrease physician electronic health record (EHR) workload and improve clinical quality. We aimed to assess the impact of a scribe on clinical efficiency and quality in an academic internal medicine practice. Methods Six faculty physicians worked with one scribe at an urban academic general internal medicine clinic April through June 2017. Patient visits during the 3 months prior to intervention (baseline, n = 789), unscribed visits during the intervention (concurrent control, n = 605), and scribed visits (n = 579) were included in the study. Clinical efficiency outcomes included time to close encounter, patient time in clinic, and number of visits per clinic session. Quality outcomes included EHR note quality, rates of medication and immunization review, population of patient instructions, reconciliation of outside information, and completion of preventative health recommendations. Results Median time to close encounter (IQR) was lower for scribed visits [0.4 (4.8) days] compared to baseline and unscribed visits [1.2 (5.9) and 2.9 (5.4) days, both p < 0.001]. Scribed notes were more likely to have a clear history of present illness (HPI) [OR = 7.30 (2.35–22.7), p = 0.001] and sufficient HPI information [OR = 2.21 (1.13–4.35), p = 0.02] compared to unscribed notes. Physicians were more likely to review the medication list during scribed vs. baseline visits [OR = 1.70 (1.22–2.35), p = 0.002]. No differences were found in the number of visits per clinic session, patient time in clinic, completion of preventative health recommendations, or other outcomes. Conclusions Working with a scribe in an academic internal medicine practice was associated with more timely documentation.

Analysis of Smartphone Interruptions on Academic General Internal Medicine Wards

SummaryIntroduction: Hospital-based medical services are increasingly utilizing team-based pagers and smartphones to streamline communications. However, an unintended consequence may be higher volumes of interruptions potentially leading to medical error. There is likely a level at which interruptions are excessive and cause a ‘crisis mode’ climate.Methods: We retrospectively collected phone, text messaging, and email interruptions directed to hospital-assigned smartphones on eight General Internal Medicine (GIM) teams at two tertiary care centres in Toronto, Ontario from April 2013 to September 2014. We also calculated the number of times these interruptions exceeded a pre-specified threshold per hour, termed ‘crisis mode’, defined as at least five interruptions in 30 minutes. We analyzed the correlation between interruptions and date, site, and patient volumes.Results: A total of 187,049 interruptions were collected over an 18-month period. Daily weekday interruptions rose sharply in the morning, peaking between 11 AM to 12 PM and measuring 4.8 and 3.7 mean interruptions/hour at each site, respectively. Mean daily interruptions per team totaled 46.2 ± 3.6 at Site 1 and 39.2 ± 4.2 at Site 2. The ‘crisis mode’ threshold was exceeded, on average, 2.3 times/day per GIM team during weekdays. In a multivariable linear regression analysis, site ([uni03B2]6.43 CI95% 5.44 –7.42, p<0.001), day of the week (with Friday having the most interruptions) ([uni03B2]0.481 CI95% 0.236 –0.730, p<0.05) and patient census ([uni03B2]1.55 CI95% 1.42 –1.67, p<0.05) were all predictive of daily interruption volume although there was a significant interaction effect between site and patient census ([uni03B2]-0.941 CI95% -1.18 –-0.703, p<0.05).Conclusion: Interruptions were related to site-specific features, including volume, suggesting that future interventions should target the culture of individual hospitals. Excessive interruptions may have implications for patient safety especially when exceeding a maximal threshold over short periods of time.

Effect of a Financial Incentive for Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence on the Appropriateness of Colonoscopy Orders

Performance incentives for preventive care may encourage inappropriate testing, such as cancer screening for patients with short life expectancies. Defining screening colonoscopies for patients with a >50% 4-year mortality risk as inappropriate, the authors performed a pre-post analysis assessing the effect of introducing a cancer screening incentive on the proportion of screening colonoscopy orders that were inappropriate. Among 2078 orders placed by 23 attending physicians in 4 academic general internal medicine practices, only 0.6% (n = 6/1057) of screening colonoscopy orders in the preintervention period and 0.6% (n = 6/1021) of screening colonoscopy orders in the postintervention period were deemed “inappropriate.” This study found no evidence that the incentive led to an increase in inappropriate screening colonoscopy orders.

Preparing for Oral Scientific and Clinical Vignette Presentations

Background Little is known about how faculty, residents, and fellows practice for oral presentations at academic meetings. We sought to categorize presenters' practice styles and the impact of feedback. Methods We surveyed oral presenters at 5 annual academic general internal medicine meetings between 2008 and 2010, using a cross-sectional design. Main measures were frequency and settings of practice, most helpful practice setting, changes made in response to feedback, impact of feedback, and perceived quality of presentation. Results The response rate was 63% (333/525 responders). Respondents represented 59 academic medical centers. Presenters reported practicing in a mean ± SD of 2.3 (±1.3) of 5 different settings. Of the 46% of presenters (152/333) who practiced in front of a group of more experienced colleagues, 80% of presenters (122/152) reported it was the most helpful setting. Eighty-one percent of presenters (268/333) practiced alone, and 25% of presenters (82/333) reported practicing alone was the most helpful setting. The mean numbers of change types reported by faculty were fewer than those reported by residents and fellows (mean 2.3 ± 1.8, and 3.1 ± 2.0, respectively; P &lt; .001). Practicing alone was not associated with changes in content (P = .30), visual aids (P = .12), or delivery style (P = .53). Conclusions Practicing in front of a group of experienced colleagues was the most helpful setting in which to prepare for an oral academic meeting presentation, but it was not universally utilized. Feedback given at these sessions was more likely to result in changes made to the presentation; however, broader implementation of such sessions may require institutional support.