Dataset Information

Intensivists' base specialty of training is associated with variations in mortality and practice patterns.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Current evidence regarding whether the staffing of intensive care units (ICUs) with a trained Intensivist benefits patient outcomes is discordant. We sought to determine whether, among certified Intensivists, base specialty of training could contribute to variation in practice patterns and patient outcomes in ICUs.

Methods

The records of all patients who were admitted to one of three closed multi-system ICUs within tertiary care centers in the Calgary Health Region, Alberta, Canada, during a five year period were retrospectively reviewed. Outcomes for patients admitted by Intensivists with base training in General Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Medicine, or other eligible base specialties (Anesthesia, General Surgery, and Emergency Medicine combined) were compared.

Results

ICU mortality in the entire cohort (n = 9,808) was 17.2% and in-hospital mortality was 32.0%. After controlling for potential confounders, ICU mortality (odds ratio (OR): 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52 to 0.94) was significantly lower for patients admitted by Intensivists with Pulmonary Medicine as a base specialty of training, but not ICU length of stay (LOS) (coefficient: 0.11; -0.20 to 0.42) or hospital mortality (OR: 0.88; 0.68 to 1.13). There was no difference in ICU or hospital mortality or length of stay between the three base specialty groups for patients who were admitted and managed by a single Intensivist for their entire ICU admission (n = 4,612). However, we identified significant variation in practice patterns between the three specialty groups for the number of invasive procedures performed and decisions to limit life-sustaining therapies.

Conclusions

Intensivists' base specialty of training is associated with practice pattern variations. This may contribute to differences in processes and outcomes of patient care.

SUBMITTER: Billington EO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2811951 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDespite the increasing involvement of advanced practice practitioners (APPs; ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in care delivery across specialties, the work patterns of APPs compared with physicians and how they are integrated into care teams have not been well characterized.ObjectiveTo characterize differences between physicians and APPs across specialty types related to days with appointments, visit types seen, and time spent using the electronic health record (EHR).Design, setting, and participantsThis nationwide, cross-sectional study used EHR data from physicians and APPs (ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) at all US institutions that used Epic Systems' EHR between January and May 2021. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to April 2023.Main outcomes and measuresAppointment scheduling patterns, percentage of new and established and level of evaluation and management (E/M) visits, and EHR use metrics per day and week.ResultsThe sample consisted of 217 924 clinicians across 389 organizations, including 174 939 physicians and 42 985 APPs. Although primary care physicians were more likely than APPs to have more than 3 days per week with appointments (50 921 physicians [79.5%] vs 17 095 APPs [77.9%]), this trend was reversed for medical (38 645 physicians [64.8%] vs 8124 APPs [74.0%]) and surgical (24 155 physicians [47.1%] vs 5198 APPs [51.7%]) specialties. Medical and surgical specialty physicians saw 6.7 and 7.4 percentage points, respectively, more new patient visits than did their APP counterparts, whereas primary care physicians saw 2.8 percentage points fewer new patient visits than did APPs. Physicians saw a greater percentage of level 4 or 5 visits across all specialties. Medical and surgical physicians spent 34.3 and 45.8 fewer minutes per day, respectively, using the EHR than did APPs in their specialties, whereas primary care physicians spent 17.7 minutes per day more. These differences translated to primary care physicians spending 96.3 minutes more per week using the EHR than APPs, whereas medical and surgical physicians spent 149.9 and 140.7 fewer minutes, respectively, than did their APP counterparts.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional, national study of clinicians found significant differences in visit and EHR patterns for physicians compared with APPs across specialty types. By underscoring the different current usage of physicians vs APPs across specialty types, this study helps place into context the work and visit patterns of physicians compared with APPs and serves as a foundation for evaluations of clinical outcomes and quality.

Project description:BackgroundMaking health care safer is a key policy priority worldwide. In specialty training, medical educators may unintentionally impact on patient safety e.g. through failures of supervision; providing limited feedback on performance; and letting poorly developed behaviours continue unchecked. Doctors-in-training are also known to be susceptible to medical error. Ensuring that all essential educational issues are addressed during training is problematic given the scale of the tasks to be undertaken. Human error and the reliability of local systems may increase the risk of safety-critical topics being inadequately covered. However adherence to a checklist reminder may improve the reliability of task delivery and maximise harm reduction. We aimed to prioritise the most safety-critical issues to be addressed in the first 12-weeks of specialty training in the general practice environment and validate a related checklist reminder.MethodsWe used mixed methods with different groups of GP educators (n=127) and specialty trainees (n=9) in two Scottish regions to prioritise, develop and validate checklist content. Generation and refinement of checklist themes and items were undertaken on an iterative basis using a range of methods including small group work in dedicated workshops; a modified-Delphi process; and telephone interviews. The relevance of potential checklist items was rated using a 4-point scale content validity index to inform final inclusion.Results14 themes (e.g. prescribing safely; dealing with medical emergency; implications of poor record keeping; and effective & safe communication) and 47 related items (e.g. how to safety-net face-to-face or over the telephone; knowledge of practice systems for results handling; recognition of harm in children) were judged to be essential safety-critical educational issues to be covered. The mean content validity index ratio was 0.98.ConclusionA checklist was developed and validated for educational supervisors to assist in the reliable delivery of safety-critical educational issues in the opening 12-week period of training, and aligned with national curriculum competencies. The tool can also be adapted for use as a self-assessment instrument by trainees to guide patient safety-related learning needs. Dissemination and implementation of the checklist and self-rating scale are proceeding on a national, voluntary basis with plans to evaluate its feasibility and educational impact.

Project description:Background:Guidelines recommend discontinuation of antimicrobial prophylaxis within 24 h after incision closure in uninfected patients. However, how facility and surgical specialty factors affect the implementation of these evidence-based surgical prophylaxis guidelines in outpatient surgery is unknown. Thus, we sought to measure how facility complexity, including ambulatory surgical center (ASC) status and availability of ancillary services, impact adherence to guidelines for timely discontinuation of antimicrobial prophylaxis after outpatient surgery. A secondary aim was to measure the association between surgical specialty and guideline compliance. Methods:A multi-center, national Veterans Health Administration retrospective cohort from 10/1/2015-9/30/2017 including any Veteran undergoing an outpatient surgical procedure in any of five specialties (general surgery, urology, ophthalmology, ENT, orthopedics) was created. The primary outcome was the association between facility complexity and proportion of surgeries not compliant with discontinuation of antimicrobials within 24 h of incision closure. Data were analyzed using logistic regression with adjustments for patient and procedural factors. Results:Among 153,097 outpatient surgeries, 7712 (5.0%) received antimicrobial prophylaxis lasting > 24 h after surgery; rates ranged from 0.4% (eye surgeries) to 13.7% (genitourinary surgeries). Cystoscopies and cystoureteroscopy with lithotripsy procedures had the highest rates (16 and 20%), while hernia repair, cataract surgeries, and laparoscopic cholecystectomies had the lowest (0.2-0.3%). In an adjusted logistic regression model, lower complexity ASC and hospital outpatient departments had higher odds of prolonged antimicrobial prophylaxis compared to complex hospitals (OR ASC, 1.3, 95% CI: 1.2-1.5). Patient factors associated with higher odds of noncompliance with antimicrobial discontinuation included younger age, female sex, and white race. Genitourinary and ear/nose/throat surgeries were associated with the highest odds of prolonged antimicrobial prophylaxis. Conclusions:Facility complexity appears to play a role in adherence to surgical infection prevention guidelines. Lower complexity facilities with limited infection prevention and antimicrobial stewardship resources may be important targets for quality improvement. Such interventions may be especially useful for genitourinary and ear/nose/throat surgical subspecialties. Increasing pharmacy, antimicrobial stewardship and/or infection prevention resources to promote more evidence-based care may support surgical providers in lower complexity ambulatory surgery centers and hospital outpatient departments in their efforts to improve this facet of patient safety.

Project description:Introduction: In different German regions, seminar programs have been conducted for General practice residents. In each region, selection and teaching of learning content is conducted in a different manner. So far, no structured, standardized curriculum has been implemented nationwide. We have investigated, if the development of a common 5-year program of learning topics is conceivable between the different university departments of General practice in Germany. Method: The seminar program working group of the DEGAM (German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians) has conducted an online survey based on information gathered via preliminary telephone conference (n=7; physicians with postgraduate teaching experience) among all German university departments of General Practice and two non-university teaching institutions, identified via the internet. 884 topics were extracted from 14 Seminar programs. The topics were entered in a database, discussed and categorized: Practice management/practice work flow/standardized documentation forms/quality management (n=33 topics), common acute and chronic diseases, including disease management programs (n=29 topics), communication, neurological, psychological and psychiatric consultations (n=24 topics), common medical problems, including eye, ear, nose, throat, skin and pediatric problems (n=99 Topics) family physicians general approach, including epidemiology, shared decision making, test of time (n=42 Topics). These topics have been rated for priority and desirable number of teaching-units. Results: A catalogue of 111 topics was designed, encompassing 160 teaching units. There is a suggestion of wide topics collections plus an add-on catalogue. Conclusion: A proposal for a 5-year-thematic catalogue for postgraduate training of general practice residents in Germany has been developed. This newly developed curriculum has the potential to improve knowledge and skills that have not been covered during in-house and ambulatory general practice residencies.

Project description:BackgroundMultidisciplinary collaboration has generally been shown to have positive effects on healthcare but can be difficult to facilitate. This study assessed the effects of a multidisciplinary fibroid clinic on practice patterns and clinician perceptions to better understand drivers of interspecialty collaboration.Materials and methodsAnnual rates of hysterectomies, myomectomies, and uterine fibroid embolizations (UFEs) performed in an urban healthcare system were collected from 2012-2019. Rates of each procedure were compared over time before and after launching a multidisciplinary fibroid clinic at the academic medical center. Referral rates were also compared. The gynecologists and interventional radiologists (IRs) involved in the clinic were interviewed 2 years prior to and after the clinic launch about their approaches to fibroids and perceptions of others who treat this condition. A phenomenological approach was used to identify and compare themes within the interviews by two researchers with excellent inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.80).Results and discussionAnnual rates of fibroid procedures increased over time (p<0.01) but the relative number of UFEs decreased (p = 0.01). UFE referrals by the clinic gynecologists significantly increased as did the number of combined fibroid procedures (p<0.01). However, the rates of one fibroid procedure relative to others were not different between the clinic and rest of the healthcare system (p = 0.55). Specialty-specific perceptions of fibroid treatments and inter-specialty dynamics did not change. Despite this, clinicians unanimously perceived the clinic and post-clinic practice patterns as positive and distinct from their previous work and relationships between gynecology and IR elsewhere. Limitations of this study included its single clinic design and potential confounder of differences in advertising pre- versus post-clinic.ConclusionCreating the right practice environment may be more important for fostering inter-specialty collaboration and work satisfaction than shared mental models or procedural volumes in certain practice settings.

Project description:BackgroundCombatting antimicrobial resistance requires a One Health approach to antimicrobial stewardship including antimicrobial drug (AMD) use evaluation. Current veterinary AMD prescribing data are limited.ObjectivesTo quantify companion animal AMD prescribing in primary care and specialty practice across 3 academic veterinary hospitals with particular focus on third-generation cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, and carbapenems.AnimalsDogs and cats presented to 3 academic veterinary hospitals from 2012 to 2017.MethodsIn this retrospective study, AMD prescribing data from 2012 to 2017 were extracted from electronic medical records at each hospital and prescriptions classified by service type: primary care, specialty practice or Emergency/Critical Care (ECC). Hospital-level AMD prescribing data were summarized by species, service type, AMD class, and drug. Multivariable logistic full-factorial regression models were used to estimate hospital, year, species, and service-type effects on AMD prescribing. Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals were plotted over time.ResultsThe probability of systemic AMD prescribing for any indication ranged between 0.15 and 0.28 and was higher for dogs than cats (P < .05) apart from 2017 at hospital 1. Animals presented to primary care were least likely to receive AMDs (dogs 0.03-0.15, cats 0.03-0.18). The most commonly prescribed AMD classes were aminopenicillins/β-lactamase inhibitors (0.02-0.15), first-generation cephalosporins (0.00-0.09), fluoroquinolones (0.00-0.04), nitroimidazoles (0.01-0.06), and tetracyclines (0.00-0.03). Among the highest priority classes, fluoroquinolones (dogs 0.00-0.09, cats 0.00-0.08) and third-generation cephalosporins (dogs 0.00-0.04, cats 0.00-0.05) were most frequently prescribed.Conclusions and clinical importanceAntimicrobial drug prescribing frequencies were comparable to previous studies. Additional stewardship efforts might focus on fluoroquinolones and third-generation cephalosporins.