Dataset Information

Internal Medicine Resident Work Absence During the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Large Academic Medical Center in New York City.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Montefiore Medical Center (MMC) is a large tertiary care center in the Bronx, New York City, with 245 internal medicine residents. Beginning on February 29, 2020, residents became ill with COVID-19-like illness (CLI), which required absence from work. There was initially a shortage of personal protective equipment and delays in SARS-CoV-2 testing, which gradually improved during March and April 2020.

Objective

We evaluated the relationship between CLI-related work absence rates of internal medicine residents and MMC's COVID-19 hospital census over time.

Methods

Data on resident work absence between February 29 and May 22 were reviewed along with MMC's COVID-19 hospital census data. To determine the effect of patient exposure on resident CLI incidence, we compared the mean incidence of CLI per patient exposure days (PED = daily hospital census × days pre- or post-peak) before and after peak COVID-19 hospital census.

Results

Forty-two percent (103 of 245) of internal medicine residents were absent from work, resulting in 875 missed workdays. At the peak of resident work absence, 16% (38 of 245) were out sick. Residents were absent for a median of 7 days (IQR 6-9.5 days). Mean resident CLI incidence per PED (CLI/PED) was 13.9-fold lower post-peak compared to pre-peak (P = .003).

Conclusions

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City, a large portion of internal medicine residents at this single center became ill. However, the incidence of CLI decreased over time, despite ongoing exposure to patients with COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Merkin R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7771614 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Patient outcomes with hospitalist care have been studied in many settings, yet little is known about how hospitalist care interacts with trainee care to affect patient outcomes in teaching hospitals.The aim of this study was to compare patient outcomes between hospitalist-preceptors and hospitalists working alone (isolating the effect of housestaff involvement), and between hospitalist-preceptors and academician-preceptors (isolating the effect of attending type, given housestaff involvement).A four-year retrospective cohort study of patients (n?=?13,313) admitted to all internal medicine services at an academic medical center from July 2008 to June 2012.Using generalized estimating equations, we measured readmission within 30 days, hospital length of stay, cost of the index hospitalization, and cumulative cost including readmissions within 30 days.In the adjusted models, 30-day readmission odds were higher for academic-preceptors (OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03?-?1.26]) and hospitalist-preceptors (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.002?-?1.21]) than for hospitalists working alone. Compared with hospitalists working alone, academic-preceptors were associated with shorter length of stay (mean difference, 0.27 days [95% CI, 0.18?-?0.38]), lower index hospitalization costs (mean difference, $386 [95% CI, $192?-?$576]), but similar cumulative inpatient costs within 30 days of discharge. Compared with hospitalists working alone, hospitalist-preceptors were associated with shorter length of stay (mean difference, 0.34 days [95% CI, 0.26?-?0.42]), lower index hospitalization cost (mean difference, $570 [95% CI, $378?-?$760]), and a trend toward lower cumulative cost (mean difference, $1347 [95% CI, $254?-?$2,816]).Preceptor-led medicine services were associated with more readmissions within 30 days, shorter lengths of stay, and lower index admission-associated costs. However, when considering cumulative hospitalization costs, patients discharged by academician-preceptors incurred the highest cost and hospitalist-preceptors incurred the lowest cost.

Project description:ImportanceThe patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model holds promise for improving primary care delivery, but it has not been adequately tested in teaching settings.Design, setting, and participantsWe implemented an intervention guided by PCMH principles at a safety-net teaching clinic with resident physician providers. Two similar clinics served as controls.Main outcomes and measuresUsing a cross-sectional design, we measured the effect on patient and resident satisfaction using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey and a validated teaching clinic survey, respectively. Both surveys were conducted at baseline and 1 year after the intervention. We also measured the effect on emergency department and hospital utilization.ResultsFollowing implementation of our intervention, the clinic’s score on the National Committee for Quality Assurance’s PCMH certification tool improved from 35 to 53 of 100 possible points, although our clinic did not achieve all must-pass elements to qualify as a PCMH. During the 1-year study period, 4676 patients were exposed to the intervention; 39.9% of these used at least 1 program component. Compared with baseline, patient-reported access and overall satisfaction improved to a greater extent in the intervention clinic, and the composite satisfaction rating increased from 48% to 65% in the intervention clinic vs from 50% to 59% in the control sites (P = .04). The improvements were particularly notable for questions relating to access. For example, satisfaction with urgent appointment scheduling increased from 12% to 53% in the intervention clinic vs from 14% to 18% in the control clinics (P < .001). Resident satisfaction also improved in the intervention clinic: the composite satisfaction score increased from 39% to 51% in the intervention clinic vs a decrease from 46% to 42% in the control clinics (P = .01). Emergency department utilization did not differ significantly between the intervention and control clinics, and hospitalizations increased from 26 to 27 visits per 1000 patients per month in the intervention clinic vs a decrease from 28 to 25 in the control clinics (P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceOur PCMH-guided intervention, which represented a modest but substantive step toward the PCMH vision, had favorable effects on patient and resident satisfaction at a safety-net teaching clinic but did not reduce emergency department or hospital utilization in the first year. Our experience may provide lessons for other teaching clinics in safety-net settings hoping to implement PCMH-guided reforms.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The quality of care for diabetes continues to fall short of recommended guidelines and results. Models for improving the care of chronic illnesses advocate a multidisciplinary team approach. Yet little is known about the effectiveness of such models in an academic setting with a diverse patient population and resident physicians participating in clinical care. OBJECTIVE: To implement a chronic illness management (CIM) practice within an academic setting with part-time providers, and evaluate its impact on the completion of diabetes-specific care processes and on the achievement of recommended outcomes for patients with diabetes mellitus. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study SUBJECTS: Patients with the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus who receive their primary care in an academic general internal medicine resident-faculty practice. MEASUREMENTS: Process and outcomes measures in patients exposed to the CIM practice were compared with non-exposed patients receiving usual care. MAIN RESULTS: Five hundred and sixty-five patients met inclusion criteria. Patients in the CIM practice experienced a significant increase in completion of care processes compared to control patients for measurement of annual low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.7-5.7), urine microalbumin (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.1-5.5), blood pressure (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-2.8), retinal examination (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.7), foot monofilament examination (OR 4.2, 95% CI 3.0-6.1) and administration of pneumococcal vaccination (OR 5.2, 95% CI 3.0-9.3). CIM-exposed patients were also more likely to achieve improvements in clinical outcomes of glycemic and blood pressure control reflected by hemoglobin A1c less than 7.0% (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.02-3) and blood pressure less than 130/80 (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.1-4.5) compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic chronic care model can be successfully integrated into an academic general internal medicine practice and may result in improved processes of care and some clinical outcomes for diabetic patients. This study provides a model for further hypothesis generation and more rigorous testing of the quality benefits of structured chronic illness care in diverse outpatient practices.