Catherine Callister MD, Gopi Astik MD, MS, R. Matthew Atkins MD, Angela Alday MD, Khooshbu Dayton MD, Angela Keniston PhD, MSPH, Anne Linker MD, Lauren McBeth BA, John Merriman MD, MPH, Sara Westergaard MD, MPH, Amy Yu MD, Andrew Auerbach MD, MPH, Marisha Burden MD, MBA
{"title":"Optimizing learners on direct care teaching services: A qualitative study of hospitalist clinicians at 26 sites","authors":"Catherine Callister MD, Gopi Astik MD, MS, R. Matthew Atkins MD, Angela Alday MD, Khooshbu Dayton MD, Angela Keniston PhD, MSPH, Anne Linker MD, Lauren McBeth BA, John Merriman MD, MPH, Sara Westergaard MD, MPH, Amy Yu MD, Andrew Auerbach MD, MPH, Marisha Burden MD, MBA","doi":"10.1002/jhm.13561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Academic medical centers are experiencing rapid clinical growth which has outpaced traditional teaching services. Learners such as medical students, advanced practice provider fellows, and residents may be placed onto direct care teaching services (i.e., inpatient services where attendings provide both direct care to patients and supervise learners) creating potential challenges for attending physicians due to clinical demands.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>Characterize the hospitalist experience with direct care teaching services.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Embedded mixed methods study with a 16-question survey and semistructured focus groups using rapid qualitative methods.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting and participants</h3>\n \n <p>Virtual focus groups in the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). Main Outcome and measures: Qualitative themes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty-eight hospitalist clinicians from 26 hospital systems across five geographic regions participated in the focus groups. Thirty-four (89%) of participants responded to the survey and were predominantly physicians (97%). Most participants preferred traditional teaching services compared with direct care teaching services with 82% replying somewhat or to a great extent. Thematic analysis identified three themes: (1) Hospitalists prefer traditional teaching services in part due to a time and workload mismatch in direct care teaching services; (2) Adaptations can support attending physicians in direct care teaching services such as adjusting workloads based on the level of learners; and (3) Direct care teaching services were perceived to serve an important role by providing direct and personalized teaching, and offering teaching opportunities.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Direct care teaching services pose challenges given clinical workloads, time constraints for educational activities. Addressing these challenges may make these types of services more sustainable.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15883,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hospital medicine","volume":"20 6","pages":"562-572"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jhm.13561","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Academic medical centers are experiencing rapid clinical growth which has outpaced traditional teaching services. Learners such as medical students, advanced practice provider fellows, and residents may be placed onto direct care teaching services (i.e., inpatient services where attendings provide both direct care to patients and supervise learners) creating potential challenges for attending physicians due to clinical demands.
Objective
Characterize the hospitalist experience with direct care teaching services.
Methods
Embedded mixed methods study with a 16-question survey and semistructured focus groups using rapid qualitative methods.
Setting and participants
Virtual focus groups in the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). Main Outcome and measures: Qualitative themes.
Results
Thirty-eight hospitalist clinicians from 26 hospital systems across five geographic regions participated in the focus groups. Thirty-four (89%) of participants responded to the survey and were predominantly physicians (97%). Most participants preferred traditional teaching services compared with direct care teaching services with 82% replying somewhat or to a great extent. Thematic analysis identified three themes: (1) Hospitalists prefer traditional teaching services in part due to a time and workload mismatch in direct care teaching services; (2) Adaptations can support attending physicians in direct care teaching services such as adjusting workloads based on the level of learners; and (3) Direct care teaching services were perceived to serve an important role by providing direct and personalized teaching, and offering teaching opportunities.
Conclusion
Direct care teaching services pose challenges given clinical workloads, time constraints for educational activities. Addressing these challenges may make these types of services more sustainable.
期刊介绍:
JHM is a peer-reviewed publication of the Society of Hospital Medicine and is published 12 times per year. JHM publishes manuscripts that address the care of hospitalized adults or children.
Broad areas of interest include (1) Treatments for common inpatient conditions; (2) Approaches to improving perioperative care; (3) Improving care for hospitalized patients with geriatric or pediatric vulnerabilities (such as mobility problems, or those with complex longitudinal care); (4) Evaluation of innovative healthcare delivery or educational models; (5) Approaches to improving the quality, safety, and value of healthcare across the acute- and postacute-continuum of care; and (6) Evaluation of policy and payment changes that affect hospital and postacute care.