Search

Multiple models of clinical exposure to primary care exist within undergraduate medical education (UME) and graduate medical education (GME). In this narrative review, we explore the evidence behind these different models of exposure, their alignment with positive promoters of primary care careers, and the pros and cons of each. Without positive exposure to primary care during training, sustaining the future primary care work force becomes increasingly challenging. Here, we explore multiple models of clinical exposure in UME, including longitudinal integrated clerkships, primary care tracks, and primary care clerkships. Within GME, we will review the impact of primary care tracks, Area Health Education Centers, block scheduling models, and continuity clinic scheduling models. The goal of this narrative review is to allow educators to think broadly and intentionally about the array of models to develop positive primary care experiences and perceptions in training, ultimately sustaining the primary care workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) increases the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. Despite higher prevalence of HCV in persons born 1945–1965 (baby boomer), screening has not been widely adopted. Both primary care providers (PCPs) and associate care providers (ACPs) need to be educated about the rationale and methods to screen for HCV. In five Federally Qualified Health Centers serving low-income Hispanic communities, PCPs and ACPs attended a 50-min training lecture about HCV epidemiology, screening methods, and evaluation. Using a 12-item questionnaire, knowledge and attitudes were compared for PCPs and ACPs at baseline (pre-test) and following training (post-test). A higher proportion of PCPs correctly answered 3 of 6 knowledge questions on both pre-test and post-test but ACPs' showed more improvement in knowledge (all P < 0.05). ACPs had more favorable attitudes about linking patients to care on pre- and post-tests than PCPs, and ACPs' attitudes improved on all 6 items versus 4 for PCPs. Both PCPs and ACPs improved knowledge and attitudes after training about HCV screening but ACPs had more favorable attitudes than PCPs. Engaging the entire primary care practice team in learning about HCV screening promotes knowledge and attitudes necessary for successful implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are limited data on noninvasive methods to identify hepatic steatosis in coexisting hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Aims: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of noninvasive serum-based scores to detect steatosis using two distinct chronic HBV cohorts with liver histology evaluation. Methods: Chronic HBV cohorts with untreated HBV mono-infection (N = 302) and with treated HBV–HIV (N = 92) were included. Liver histology was scored centrally. Four serum-based scores were calculated: hepatic steatosis index (HSI), nonalcoholic fatty liver disease Liver Fat Score (NAFLD-LFS), visceral adiposity index (VAI), and triglyceride glucose (TyG) index. Optimal cutoffs (highest sensitivity + specificity) to detect ≥ 5% HS, stratified by cohort, were evaluated. Results: HBV–HIV (vs. HBV mono-infected) patients were older (median 50 vs. 43 years), and a higher proportion were male (92% vs. 60%), were black (51% vs. 8%), had the metabolic syndrome (41% vs. 25%), and suppressed HBV DNA (< 1000 IU/mL; 82% vs. 9%). Applying optimal cutoffs, the area under the receiver operator curve for detecting ≥ 5% steatosis in HBV-only and HBV–HIV, respectively, was 0.69 and 0.61 for HSI, 0.70 and 0.76 for NAFLD-LFS, 0.68 and 0.64 for TyG, and 0.68 and 0.69 for VAI. The accuracy of optimal cutoffs ranged from 61% (NAFLD-LFS) to 67% (TyG) among HBV-only and 56% (HSI) to 76% (NAFLD-LFS) among HBV–HIV. Negative predictive values were higher than positive predictive values for all scores in both groups. Conclusion: The relative utility of scores to identify steatosis in chronic HBV differs by co-infection/anti-HBV medication status. However, even with population-specific cutoffs, several common serum-based scores have only moderate utility. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01924455. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Systems thinking is the ability to recognize and synthesize patterns, interactions, and interdependencies in a set of activities and is a key component in quality and safety. A measure of systems thinking is needed to advance our understanding of the mechanisms that contribute to improvement efforts. The purpose of this study was to develop and conduct psychometric testing of a systems thinking scale (STS). Methods: The development of the STS included obtaining national quality and safety experts' conceptual domains of systems thinking and the generation of a provisional set of items. Further psychometric analyses were conducted with interprofessional healthcare faculty (N = 342) and students (N = 224) engaged in quality improvement initiatives and education. Results: Of the 26 items identified in the development phase, factor analyses indicated three factors: (1) system thinking (20 items), (2) personal effort (2 items), and (3) reliance on authority (4 items). The six items from factors 2 and 3 were omitted due to low factor loadings. Test-retest reliability of the 20-item STS was performed on 36 healthcare professionals and a correlation of 0.74 was found. Internal consistency testing on a sample of 342 healthcare professionals using Cronbach's alpha showed a coefficient of 0.89. Discriminant validity was confirmed with three groups of healthcare professions students (N = 102) who received high, low, or no dose levels of systems thinking education in the context of process improvement. Conclusions: The 20-item STS is a valid and reliable instrument that is easy to administer and takes less than 10 min to complete. Further research using the STS has the potential to advance the science and education of quality improvement in two main ways: (1) increase understanding of a critical mechanism by which quality improvement processes achieve results, and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of our education to improve systems thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In "Disparities in Quality of Primary Care by Resident and Staff Physicians: Is There a Conflict Between Training and Equity?" 2 Edwards ST, Kim H, Shull S, Hooker ER, Niederhausen M, Tuepker A. Quality of outpatient care with internal medicine residents vs. attending physicians in Veterans Affairs primary care clinics. [Extracted from the article]