Search

Background Despite many benefits of end-of-life (EOL) planning, only 1 in 3 adults has EOL documentation, with low rates in resident primary care clinics as well. Objective To increase clinic completion of life-sustaining treatment (LST) notes and advance directives (AD) for veterans at highest risk for death. Methods The setting was a Veterans Affairs (VA) internal medicine primary care clinic. All clinic residents in the 2021-2022 academic year and all clinic patients identified through a VA risk-stratification tool as highest risk for death were included. Baseline AD and LST completion rates were determined through manual chart review. Our interventions included 2 hours of teaching to increase resident knowledge of EOL planning and a systematic process improvement to complete EOL planning appointments. Outcomes assessed included anonymous resident pre- and post-surveys of self-assessed knowledge and comfort with EOL conversations, as well as rates of LST and AD completion determined through serial chart review. Results In the 2021-2022 academic year, 22 residents (100%) and 54 patients were included. Post-intervention surveys (n=22, 100%) showed improved self-assessed knowledge of EOL concepts and comfort with patient discussions (median Likert increase 3 to 4). The number of residents who completed an EOL planning visit increased from 9 of 22 (41%) to 15 (68%). LST completion increased from 9 of 54 (17%) to 29 (54%), and AD completion increased from 18 of 54 (33%) to 33 (61%). Conclusions A brief teaching intervention to prepare residents for comprehensive EOL visits combined with process improvement to offer EOL planning visits improved self-reported knowledge and comfort and completion of EOL visits.

Clinical practice guidelines recommend screening for primary hyperaldosteronism (PH) in patients with resistant hypertension. However, screening rates are low in the outpatient setting. We sought to increase screening rates for PH in patients with resistant hypertension in our Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient resident physician clinic, with the goal of improving blood pressure control. Patients with possible resistant hypertension were identified through a VA Primary Care Almanac Metric query, with subsequent chart review for resistant hypertension criteria. Three sequential patient-directed cycles were implemented using rapid cycle improvement methodology during a weekly dedicated resident quality improvement half-day. In the first cycle, patients with resistant hypertension had preclinic PH screening labs ordered and were scheduled in the clinic for hypertension follow-up. In the second cycle, patients without screening labs completed were called to confirm medication adherence and counselled to screen for PH. In the third cycle, patients with positive screening labs were called to discuss mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) initiation and possible endocrinology referral. Of 97 patients initially identified, 58 (60%) were found to have resistant hypertension while 39 had pseudoresistant hypertension from medication non-adherence. Of the 58 with resistant hypertension, 44 had not previously been screened for PH while 14 (24%) had already been screened or were already taking an MRA. Our screening rate for PH in resistant hypertension patients increased from 24% at the start of the project to 84% (37/44) after two cycles. Of the 37 tested, 24% (9/37) screened positive for PH, and 5 patients were started on MRAs. This resident-led quality improvement project demonstrated that a focused intervention process can improve PH identification and treatment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: As prescription drug costs rise, it is important to understand attitudes among primary care physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs) towards generic drugs., Objective: We aimed to examine the generic skepticism index (GSI) among primary care clinicians, and their willingness to discuss and prescribe generic antidepressants (ADs) and generic oral contraceptives (OCPs)., Design: We used a factorial vignette design survey to test 4 factors: message source, message, brand preference, and drug class. Participants were randomized to different combinations of factors., Setting: This was a cross-sectional study., Participants: Physicians registered with the American College of Physicians (ACP) and NPs registered with the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) participated in the study., Main Measures: The primary outcomes were generic skepticism as measured using the generic skepticism index (GSI), and clinician willingness to discuss and prescribe generics., Results: Surveys were completed by 56% of physicians (n = 369/661) and 60% of NPs (n = 493/819). Compared with physicians, NPs were younger (p < 0.001), predominantly female (p < 0.001), and differed in the race (p < 0.001). According to the GSI, 16% (n = 138/862) were identified as generic skeptics (18.5% of NPs and 12.7% of physicians, p = 0.023). Generic skeptics had lower odds of willingness to discuss switching (OR 0.22, 95% CI (0.14-0.35), p < 0.001) or prescribe (OR 0.18, 95% CI (0.11-0.28), p < 0.001) generic OCPs. Participants had lower odds of willingness to prescribe generic drugs to patients with brand preference compared with brand-neutral patients (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.82, p < 0.001)., Conclusions and Relevance: Generic skepticism was associated with lower willingness to discuss or prescribe generic drugs. Clinicians reported lower willingness to discuss switching or prescribe generics for OCPs than for ADs. Patient brand preference hindered generic prescribing. Message source and message type were not significantly associated with outcomes.

Background: The success of initiatives intended to increase the value of health care depends, in part, on the degree to which cost-conscious care is endorsed by current and future physicians. This study aimed to first analyze attitudes of U.S. physicians by age and then compare the attitudes of physicians and medical students., Methods: A paper survey was mailed in mid-2012 to 3897 practicing physicians randomly selected from the American Medical Association Masterfile. An electronic survey was sent in early 2015 to all 5,992 students at 10 U.S. medical schools. Survey items measured attitudes toward cost-conscious care and perceived responsibility for reducing healthcare costs. Physician responses were first compared across age groups (30-40 years, 41-50 years, 51-60 years, and > 60 years) and then compared to student responses using Chi square tests and logistic regression analyses (controlling for sex)., Results: A total of 2,556 physicians (65%) and 3395 students (57%) responded. Physician attitudes generally did not differ by age, but differed significantly from those of students. Specifically, students were more likely than physicians to agree that cost to society should be important in treatment decisions (p < 0.001) and that physicians should sometimes deny beneficial but costly services (p < 0.001). Students were less likely to agree that it is unfair to ask physicians to be cost-conscious while prioritizing patient welfare (p < 0.001). Compared to physicians, students assigned more responsibility for reducing healthcare costs to hospitals and health systems (p < 0.001) and less responsibility to lawyers (p < 0.001) and patients (p < 0.001). Nearly all significant differences persisted after controlling for sex and when only the youngest physicians were compared to students., Conclusions: Physician attitudes toward cost-conscious care are similar across age groups. However, physician attitudes differ significantly from medical students, even among the youngest physicians most proximate to students in age. Medical student responses suggest they are more accepting of cost-conscious care than physicians and attribute more responsibility for reducing costs to organizations and systems rather than individuals. This may be due to the combined effects of generational differences, new medical school curricula, students' relative inexperience providing cost-conscious care within complex healthcare systems, and the rapidly evolving U.S. healthcare system.

Background: A national imperative to provide value-based care requires new strategies to teach clinicians about high-value care., Objective: We developed a virtual online learning network aimed at disseminating emerging strategies in teaching value-based care., Methods: The online Teaching Value in Health Care Learning Network includes monthly webinars that feature selected innovators, online discussion forums, and a repository for sharing tools. The learning network comprises clinician-educators and health system leaders across North America. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of all webinar presenters and the active members of the network, and we assessed program feasibility., Results: Six months after the program launched, there were 277 learning community members in 22 US states. Of the 74 active members, 50 (68%) completed the evaluation. Active members represented independently practicing physicians and trainees in 7 specialties, nurses, educators, and health system leaders. Nearly all speakers reported that the learning network provided them with a unique opportunity to connect with a different audience and achieve greater recognition for their work. Of the members who were active in the learning network, most reported that strategies gleaned from the network were helpful, and some adopted or adapted these innovations at their home institutions. One year after the program launched, the learning network had grown to 364 total members., Conclusions: The learning network helped participants share and implement innovations to promote high-value care. The model can help disseminate innovations in emerging areas of health care transformation, and is sustainable without ongoing support after a period of start-up funding., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: All authors are employed with Costs of Care Inc. Dr. Gupta is also supported by the Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Academic Affiliations through the VA/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program. Drs. Shah, Moriates, and Arora receive royalties from McGraw-Hill and have received a grant from the ABIM Foundation.