Saul N Weingart, Katrina S Kufer, Meghan I Short, Joseph Gillis, Kinjalika Sathi, Prianka Chawla, Kimberly Schelling, Kristin T L Huang, Julie Tishler
{"title":"Understanding Low Breast Cancer Screening Rates by Resident Physicians.","authors":"Saul N Weingart, Katrina S Kufer, Meghan I Short, Joseph Gillis, Kinjalika Sathi, Prianka Chawla, Kimberly Schelling, Kristin T L Huang, Julie Tishler","doi":"10.1007/s11606-026-10899-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While research has shown that medical residents often achieve poorer cancer screening rates than faculty in the same practice, residents' disadvantages in experience and continuity may be overcome in high-functioning primary care practices. To explore this observation, we compared breast cancer screening rates of resident and faculty physicians at an academic primary care practice with robust practice support.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We measured breast cancer screening compliance in CY2025 using tools embedded in EPIC. Patients were considered compliant if they were women age 40-74 with a mammogram within 2 years and no disqualifying characteristics. We abstracted patient data from the electronic medical record and collected physician data on gender, language facility, and years in practice. We compared breast cancer screening rates by physician type in bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Resident patients comprised 1024 (12%) of the 8825 patients eligible for breast cancer screening. Faculty panels included a higher percentage of patients who were white, English speakers, on commercial insurance, and with more medical comorbidities. The resident panel had more patients with serious mental illness and fewer primary care encounters. Faculty physician exceeded resident performance overall (83% vs. 66%, p < 0.001). The odds ratio of a resident patient having up-to-date breast cancer screening was 0.41 (95% confidence interval 0.35-0.47) in the unadjusted model. The adjusted odds ratios improved from 0.5 (0.40-0.62) in model 1 (patient sociodemographic only) to 0.59 (0.48-0.74) in model 2 (clinical and utilization variables) to 0.73 (0.54-0.98) in model 3 (physician attributes).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In a teaching practice with a robust primary care infrastructure, disparities in breast cancer screening between faculty and resident panels improved with rigorous adjustment. However, residency training programs may need to be redesigned to eliminate remaining disparities in care.</p>","PeriodicalId":15860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-026-10899-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: While research has shown that medical residents often achieve poorer cancer screening rates than faculty in the same practice, residents' disadvantages in experience and continuity may be overcome in high-functioning primary care practices. To explore this observation, we compared breast cancer screening rates of resident and faculty physicians at an academic primary care practice with robust practice support.
Methods: We measured breast cancer screening compliance in CY2025 using tools embedded in EPIC. Patients were considered compliant if they were women age 40-74 with a mammogram within 2 years and no disqualifying characteristics. We abstracted patient data from the electronic medical record and collected physician data on gender, language facility, and years in practice. We compared breast cancer screening rates by physician type in bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models.
Results: Resident patients comprised 1024 (12%) of the 8825 patients eligible for breast cancer screening. Faculty panels included a higher percentage of patients who were white, English speakers, on commercial insurance, and with more medical comorbidities. The resident panel had more patients with serious mental illness and fewer primary care encounters. Faculty physician exceeded resident performance overall (83% vs. 66%, p < 0.001). The odds ratio of a resident patient having up-to-date breast cancer screening was 0.41 (95% confidence interval 0.35-0.47) in the unadjusted model. The adjusted odds ratios improved from 0.5 (0.40-0.62) in model 1 (patient sociodemographic only) to 0.59 (0.48-0.74) in model 2 (clinical and utilization variables) to 0.73 (0.54-0.98) in model 3 (physician attributes).
Conclusion: In a teaching practice with a robust primary care infrastructure, disparities in breast cancer screening between faculty and resident panels improved with rigorous adjustment. However, residency training programs may need to be redesigned to eliminate remaining disparities in care.
背景:虽然研究表明,在相同的实践中,住院医生的癌症筛查率往往低于教师,但在高功能的初级保健实践中,住院医生在经验和连续性方面的劣势可能会被克服。为了探索这一观察结果,我们比较了一个学术初级保健实践中住院医生和教师医生的乳腺癌筛查率。方法:我们使用嵌入EPIC的工具测量CY2025的乳腺癌筛查依从性。如果患者是40-74岁的女性,在2年内进行乳房x光检查并且没有不合格的特征,则认为患者是依从性的。我们从电子病历中提取患者数据,并收集医生关于性别、语言能力和执业年限的数据。我们在双变量和多变量logistic回归模型中比较了不同医生类型的乳腺癌筛查率。结果:在8825例符合乳腺癌筛查条件的患者中,住院患者占1024例(12%)。在教师小组中,白人、说英语、有商业保险、有更多医疗合并症的患者比例更高。住院医师小组有更多的严重精神疾病患者,初级保健接触较少。教师医师的总体表现超过住院医师(83% vs 66%), p结论:在具有健全的初级保健基础设施的教学实践中,教师和住院医师小组在乳腺癌筛查方面的差异通过严格的调整得到改善。然而,住院医师培训计划可能需要重新设计,以消除护理中的剩余差距。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of General Internal Medicine is the official journal of the Society of General Internal Medicine. It promotes improved patient care, research, and education in primary care, general internal medicine, and hospital medicine. Its articles focus on topics such as clinical medicine, epidemiology, prevention, health care delivery, curriculum development, and numerous other non-traditional themes, in addition to classic clinical research on problems in internal medicine.