Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 914–920

Variation in Internal Medicine Residency Clinic Practices: Assessing Practice Environments and Quality of Care

  • Jeanette Mladenovic
  • Judy A. Shea
  • F. Daniel Duffy
  • Lorna A. Lynn
  • Eric S. Holmboe
  • Rebecca S. Lipner
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Few studies have systematically and rigorously examined the quality of care provided in educational practice sites.

Objective

The objectives of this study were to (1) describe the patient population cared for by trainees in internal medicine residency clinics; (2) assess the quality of preventive cardiology care provided to these patients; (3) characterize the practice-based systems that currently exist in internal medicine residency clinics; and (4) examine the relationships between quality, practice-based systems, and features of the program: size, type of program, and presence of an electronic medical record.

Design

This is a cross-sectional observational study.

Setting

This study was conducted in 15 Internal Medicine residency programs (23 sites) throughout the USA.

Participants

The participants included site champions at residency programs and 709 residents.

Measurements

Abstracted charts provided data about patient demographics, coronary heart disease risk factors, processes of care, and clinical outcomes. Patients completed surveys regarding satisfaction. Site teams completed a practice systems survey.

Results

Chart abstraction of 4,783 patients showed substantial variability across sites. On average, patients had between 3 and 4 of the 9 potential risk factors for coronary heart disease, and approximately 21% had at least 1 important barrier of care. Patients received an average of 57% (range, 30–77%) of the appropriate interventions. Reported satisfaction with care was high. Sites with an electronic medical record showed better overall information management (81% vs 27%) and better modes of communication (79% vs 43%).

Conclusions

This study has provided insight into the current state of practice in residency sites including aspects of the practice environment and quality of preventive cardiology care delivered. Substantial heterogeneity among the training sites exists. Continuous measurement of the quality of care provided and a better understanding of the training environment in which this care is delivered are important goals for delivering high quality patient care.

KEY WORDS

practice-based learning systems-based practice quality of care preventive cardiology Internal Medicine residency 

References

  1. 1.
    Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Web Site. Available at http://www.acgme.org. Accessed April 15, 2006.
  2. 2.
    American Board of Internal Medicine Web Site. Available at http://www.abim.org. Accessed May 26, 2006.
  3. 3.
    Bowen JL, Salerno SM, Chamberlain JK, Eckstrom E, Chen HL, Bandenburg S. Changing habits of practice: Transforming internal medicine residency education in ambulatory settings. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;(20)12:1181–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holmboe ES, Bowen JD, Green M, Gregg J, DiFrancesco L, Reynolds E, Alguire P, Battinelli B, Lucey C, Duffy FD. Reforming internal medicine residency training: a report from the Society of General Internal Medicine’s task force for residency reform. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(12)11:65–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fitzgibbons JP, Bordley DR, Berkowitz LR, Miller BW, Henderson MC. Redesigning residency education in internal medicine: a position paper from the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:920–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weinberger SE, Smith LG, Collier VU, for the Education Committee of the American College of Physicians. Redesigning training for internal medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:927–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Charlson ME, Karnik J, Wong M, McCulloch CE, Hollenberg JP. Does experience matter? A comparison of the practice of attendings and residents. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:497–503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kogan J, Reynolds EE, Shea JA. Effect of report cards based on chart audits of residents’ adherence to practice guidelines on practice performance: a randomized controlled trial. Teach Learn Med. 2003;15:25–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holmboe ES, Prince L, Green ML. Teaching and improving quality of care in a residency clinic. Acad Med. 2005;80:571–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Veloski J, Boex J, Grasberger MJ, Evans A, Wolfson DB. Systematic review of the literature on the impact of assessment and feedback on physicians’ clinical performance: BEME Guide No. 7. Med Teacher. 2006;28:117–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Web Site. Available at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines. Accessed April 15, 2006.
  12. 12.
    American College of Cardiology, Clinical Statements and Practice Guidelines. Available at http://www.acc.org. Accessed June 22, 2006.
  13. 13.
    Lakka HM, Lakka TA, Tuomilehto J, Salonen JT. Abdominal obesity is associated with increased risk of acute coronary events in men. Eur Heart J. 2002;23:706–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanaya AM, Vittinghoff E, Shlipak MG, Resnick HE, Visser M, Grady D, Barrett-Conner E. Association of total and central obesity with mortality in postmenopausal women with coronary heart disease. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:1161–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosenthal GE, Shannon SE. The use of patient perceptions in the evaluation of health-care delivery systems. Med Care. 1997;35(11 Suppl):NS58–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Annual Report of the National CAHPS® Benchmarking Database, 2000 Annual Report. What consumers say about the quality of their health plans and medical care. Available at http://ncbd.cahps.org/Annual_Report/NCBDrepa.htm. Accessed May 22, 2006.
  17. 17.
    Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Millbank Q. 1996;74(4):511–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moen R. A Guide to Idealized Design. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Put Prevention into Practice: Education and Action Kit. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Duffy FD, Lynn L, Didura H, Hess BJ, Caverzagie K, Grosso LJ, Lipner RS, Holmboe ES. Self Assessment of Practice Performance: Development of the ABIM Practice Improvement Module (PIM). J Cont Educ Health Prof. In press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Center for Study Health System Change. Available at http://www.hschange.com. Accessed May 22, 2006.
  22. 22.
    Kilo CM. Transforming care: Medical practice design and information technology. Health Affairs. 2005;24:1296–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gans D, Kralewski J, Hammons T, Dowd B. Medical groups’ adoption of electronic health records and information systems. Health Affairs. 2005;24:1323–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Audet AM, Doty MM, Peugh J, Shamasdin J, Zapert K, Schoenbaum S. Information technologies: when will they make it into physicians’ black bags? Med Gen Med. 2004;642.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Amalberti R, Auroy Y, Berwick D, Barach P. Five system barriers to achieving ultrasafe health care. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:756–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2001.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Audet AMJ, Doty MM, Shamasdin J, Schoenbaum SC. Measure, learn, and improve: physicians’ involvement in quality improvement. Health Affairs. 2005;24:843–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesy J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, et al. Quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2635–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nolan T, Berwick DM. All-or-none measurement raises the bar on performance. JAMA. 2006;295:1168–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Holmboe ES, Meehan TP, Lynn L, Doyle P, Sherwin T, Duffy FD. The ABIM diabetes practice improvement module: A new method for self assessment. J Cont Educ Health Prof. 2006;26:109–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeanette Mladenovic
    • 1
  • Judy A. Shea
    • 2
  • F. Daniel Duffy
    • 3
  • Lorna A. Lynn
    • 3
  • Eric S. Holmboe
    • 3
  • Rebecca S. Lipner
    • 3
  1. 1.University of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  2. 2.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.American Board of Internal MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations