确保职业生涯末期医生的安全执业:机构政策和实施经验。

IF 19.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Andrew A White, Thomas H Gallagher, Paulina H Osinska, Daniel B Kramer, Kelly Davis Garrett, Michelle M Mello
{"title":"确保职业生涯末期医生的安全执业:机构政策和实施经验。","authors":"Andrew A White, Thomas H Gallagher, Paulina H Osinska, Daniel B Kramer, Kelly Davis Garrett, Michelle M Mello","doi":"10.7326/ANNALS-24-00829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Late career physicians (LCPs; physicians working beyond age 65 to 75 years) may be at higher risk for delivering unsafe care. To oversee LCPs, some health care organizations (HCOs) have adopted LCP policies requiring cognitive, physical, and practice performance screening assessments. Despite recent controversies, little is known about the content and implementation of such policies.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To characterize key features of LCP policies and the perspectives of medical leaders responsible for policy development and implementation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Mixed-methods study using content analysis and key informant interviews.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>29 U.S. HCOs with LCP policies active in 2020.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>21 purposively sampled interviewees in physician leadership roles at 18 HCOs.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Descriptive statistics of policy features and content analysis of interviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Although policies had many commonalities-mandatory universal screening at a trigger age around 70 years, a strategy of screening followed by in-depth assessment of positive results, and commitment to patient safety as the key motive-they varied substantially in the testing required, funding, processes after a positive screening result, and decision making around concerning results. Policies prioritized institutional discretion in interpreting and responding to test results; many lacked clear language about appeals or other procedural protections for physicians. Leaders were generally satisfied with policies but reported preemptive retirements as physicians approached the screening age and cautioned that substantial investment in cultivating physicians' buy-in was required for successful rollout.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Sampled policies and interviews may not be representative of all HCOs. The analysis excluded the experiences of HCOs that tried and failed to implement LCP screening.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Policies about LCPs are considered successful by institutional leaders. Policy variations and early adopters' implementation experiences highlight opportunities to improve physician acceptance and program rigor.</p><p><strong>Primary funding source: </strong>The Greenwall Foundation.</p>","PeriodicalId":7932,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":19.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ensuring Safe Practice by Late Career Physicians: Institutional Policies and Implementation Experiences.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew A White, Thomas H Gallagher, Paulina H Osinska, Daniel B Kramer, Kelly Davis Garrett, Michelle M Mello\",\"doi\":\"10.7326/ANNALS-24-00829\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Late career physicians (LCPs; physicians working beyond age 65 to 75 years) may be at higher risk for delivering unsafe care. To oversee LCPs, some health care organizations (HCOs) have adopted LCP policies requiring cognitive, physical, and practice performance screening assessments. Despite recent controversies, little is known about the content and implementation of such policies.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To characterize key features of LCP policies and the perspectives of medical leaders responsible for policy development and implementation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Mixed-methods study using content analysis and key informant interviews.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>29 U.S. HCOs with LCP policies active in 2020.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>21 purposively sampled interviewees in physician leadership roles at 18 HCOs.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Descriptive statistics of policy features and content analysis of interviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Although policies had many commonalities-mandatory universal screening at a trigger age around 70 years, a strategy of screening followed by in-depth assessment of positive results, and commitment to patient safety as the key motive-they varied substantially in the testing required, funding, processes after a positive screening result, and decision making around concerning results. Policies prioritized institutional discretion in interpreting and responding to test results; many lacked clear language about appeals or other procedural protections for physicians. Leaders were generally satisfied with policies but reported preemptive retirements as physicians approached the screening age and cautioned that substantial investment in cultivating physicians' buy-in was required for successful rollout.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Sampled policies and interviews may not be representative of all HCOs. The analysis excluded the experiences of HCOs that tried and failed to implement LCP screening.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Policies about LCPs are considered successful by institutional leaders. Policy variations and early adopters' implementation experiences highlight opportunities to improve physician acceptance and program rigor.</p><p><strong>Primary funding source: </strong>The Greenwall Foundation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Internal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":19.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Internal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-00829\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-00829","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

背景:晚期职业医师(LCPs;工作年龄超过 65 至 75 岁的医师)提供不安全护理的风险可能较高。为了监督晚期职业医师,一些医疗机构(HCOs)采取了要求对晚期职业医师进行认知、身体和实践表现筛查评估的政策。尽管最近存在争议,但人们对此类政策的内容和实施情况知之甚少:目的:描述 LCP 政策的主要特征以及负责政策制定和实施的医疗领导者的观点:设计:采用内容分析和关键信息提供者访谈的混合方法研究.背景:2020 年美国 29 家实行 LCP 政策的医疗机构.参与者:有目的抽样的 21 名受访者,他们在 18 家医疗机构中担任医生领导职务.测量:政策特点和实施情况的描述性统计数字.结果:受访者对 LCP 政策的了解程度.测量:政策特点和实施情况的描述性统计数字:测量:政策特征的描述性统计和访谈内容分析:尽管这些政策有许多共同点--在 70 岁左右的触发年龄强制进行普遍筛查、筛查后对阳性结果进行深入评估的策略,以及以患者安全为主要动机的承诺,但它们在所需检测、资金、筛查结果呈阳性后的流程,以及有关结果的决策制定方面存在很大差异。在解释和回应检测结果方面,政策优先考虑机构的自由裁量权;许多政策缺乏关于上诉或对医生的其他程序保护的明确措辞。领导者普遍对政策感到满意,但报告称,随着医生接近筛查年龄,他们会提前退休,并提醒说,要想成功推广政策,需要投入大量资金培养医生的认同感:局限性: 抽样调查的政策和访谈可能无法代表所有 HCO。分析排除了尝试实施 LCP 筛查但失败的医疗保健公司的经验:机构领导者认为有关 LCP 的政策是成功的。政策差异和早期采用者的实施经验凸显了提高医生接受度和计划严谨性的机会:绿墙基金会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ensuring Safe Practice by Late Career Physicians: Institutional Policies and Implementation Experiences.

Background: Late career physicians (LCPs; physicians working beyond age 65 to 75 years) may be at higher risk for delivering unsafe care. To oversee LCPs, some health care organizations (HCOs) have adopted LCP policies requiring cognitive, physical, and practice performance screening assessments. Despite recent controversies, little is known about the content and implementation of such policies.

Objective: To characterize key features of LCP policies and the perspectives of medical leaders responsible for policy development and implementation.

Design: Mixed-methods study using content analysis and key informant interviews.

Setting: 29 U.S. HCOs with LCP policies active in 2020.

Participants: 21 purposively sampled interviewees in physician leadership roles at 18 HCOs.

Measurements: Descriptive statistics of policy features and content analysis of interviews.

Results: Although policies had many commonalities-mandatory universal screening at a trigger age around 70 years, a strategy of screening followed by in-depth assessment of positive results, and commitment to patient safety as the key motive-they varied substantially in the testing required, funding, processes after a positive screening result, and decision making around concerning results. Policies prioritized institutional discretion in interpreting and responding to test results; many lacked clear language about appeals or other procedural protections for physicians. Leaders were generally satisfied with policies but reported preemptive retirements as physicians approached the screening age and cautioned that substantial investment in cultivating physicians' buy-in was required for successful rollout.

Limitations: Sampled policies and interviews may not be representative of all HCOs. The analysis excluded the experiences of HCOs that tried and failed to implement LCP screening.

Conclusion: Policies about LCPs are considered successful by institutional leaders. Policy variations and early adopters' implementation experiences highlight opportunities to improve physician acceptance and program rigor.

Primary funding source: The Greenwall Foundation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Internal Medicine
Annals of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
23.90
自引率
1.80%
发文量
1136
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians (ACP), Annals of Internal Medicine is the premier internal medicine journal. Annals of Internal Medicine’s mission is to promote excellence in medicine, enable physicians and other health care professionals to be well informed members of the medical community and society, advance standards in the conduct and reporting of medical research, and contribute to improving the health of people worldwide. To achieve this mission, the journal publishes a wide variety of original research, review articles, practice guidelines, and commentary relevant to clinical practice, health care delivery, public health, health care policy, medical education, ethics, and research methodology. In addition, the journal publishes personal narratives that convey the feeling and the art of medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信