实习生和教师之间门诊护理结果的差异:一项多中心研究。

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Kelly L Graham, Maelys Amat, Elizabeth Norian, Jonathan Li, Jennifer Weintraub, Aleesha Shaik, Joel C Boggan, John Davy, Amalia Lyons, Leroy Semour, Rebecca Rogers, Roger B Davis
{"title":"实习生和教师之间门诊护理结果的差异:一项多中心研究。","authors":"Kelly L Graham, Maelys Amat, Elizabeth Norian, Jonathan Li, Jennifer Weintraub, Aleesha Shaik, Joel C Boggan, John Davy, Amalia Lyons, Leroy Semour, Rebecca Rogers, Roger B Davis","doi":"10.1007/s11606-025-09626-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Academic medical centers (AMCs) provide the nation's most complex care, with no differences in performance between trainees and faculty for inpatient outcomes. Single-center analyses demonstrated low performance on ambulatory outcomes among residents vs. faculty.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Determine whether resident-faculty ambulatory care performance disparities are a national problem, understand contributing factors present in AMCs.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study, survey-based study PARTICIPANTS: A total of 146,961 patients receiving primary care at five AMCs within resident-faculty primary care training practices during calendar year 2019. Resident clinic directors at each of the sites participated in the survey-based analysis.</p><p><strong>Main measures: </strong>The main exposure was whether the patients received primary care in a faculty-supervised resident vs. faculty-only cohort. Outcome measures included rates of colorectal and breast cancer screening and control of type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension between the resident and faculty cohorts. We also assessed the level of agreement with five components of high-functioning primary care as defined by the National Academies of Sciences in interviews with residency practice leadership.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>After adjustment for key differences in social complexity, we observed resident-faculty disparities across all five sites for all outcomes, with disparities in breast cancer screening from RR 0.69 (0.62-0.78)-0.71 (0.63-0.80); disparities in colorectal cancer screening from RR 0.77 (0.68-0.88) to 0.90 (0.86-0.93); disparities in control of type 2 diabetes mellitus from RR 0.82 (0.69-0.97) to 0.90 (0.86-0.93); and disparities in control of hypertension from RR 0.79 (0.68-0.91) to 0.87 (0.79-0.95). The magnitude of resident-faculty performance disparities may be related to the likelihood of disagreement with the five components of high-functioning primary care.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Residents performed lower than faculty on routine ambulatory quality measures. The magnitude and number of disparities may be related to disagreement on the presence of components of high-functioning primary care. These findings highlight the need for more robust infrastructural support in primary care settings to meet the needs of patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":15860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in Ambulatory Care Outcomes Between Trainees and Faculty: A Multi-center Study.\",\"authors\":\"Kelly L Graham, Maelys Amat, Elizabeth Norian, Jonathan Li, Jennifer Weintraub, Aleesha Shaik, Joel C Boggan, John Davy, Amalia Lyons, Leroy Semour, Rebecca Rogers, Roger B Davis\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11606-025-09626-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Academic medical centers (AMCs) provide the nation's most complex care, with no differences in performance between trainees and faculty for inpatient outcomes. Single-center analyses demonstrated low performance on ambulatory outcomes among residents vs. faculty.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Determine whether resident-faculty ambulatory care performance disparities are a national problem, understand contributing factors present in AMCs.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study, survey-based study PARTICIPANTS: A total of 146,961 patients receiving primary care at five AMCs within resident-faculty primary care training practices during calendar year 2019. Resident clinic directors at each of the sites participated in the survey-based analysis.</p><p><strong>Main measures: </strong>The main exposure was whether the patients received primary care in a faculty-supervised resident vs. faculty-only cohort. Outcome measures included rates of colorectal and breast cancer screening and control of type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension between the resident and faculty cohorts. We also assessed the level of agreement with five components of high-functioning primary care as defined by the National Academies of Sciences in interviews with residency practice leadership.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>After adjustment for key differences in social complexity, we observed resident-faculty disparities across all five sites for all outcomes, with disparities in breast cancer screening from RR 0.69 (0.62-0.78)-0.71 (0.63-0.80); disparities in colorectal cancer screening from RR 0.77 (0.68-0.88) to 0.90 (0.86-0.93); disparities in control of type 2 diabetes mellitus from RR 0.82 (0.69-0.97) to 0.90 (0.86-0.93); and disparities in control of hypertension from RR 0.79 (0.68-0.91) to 0.87 (0.79-0.95). The magnitude of resident-faculty performance disparities may be related to the likelihood of disagreement with the five components of high-functioning primary care.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Residents performed lower than faculty on routine ambulatory quality measures. The magnitude and number of disparities may be related to disagreement on the presence of components of high-functioning primary care. These findings highlight the need for more robust infrastructural support in primary care settings to meet the needs of patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15860,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of General Internal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-03\",\"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/s11606-025-09626-z\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-025-09626-z","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

摘要

背景:学术医疗中心(AMCs)提供全国最复杂的护理,在住院患者结果方面,实习生和教师之间的表现没有差异。单中心分析显示住院医师与教师在门诊结果上表现较差。目的:确定住院医师与教师的门诊表现差异是否为全国性问题,了解造成门诊表现差异的因素。设计:回顾性队列研究,基于调查的研究参与者:在2019日历年期间,共有146,961名患者在住院医师-教师初级保健培训实践的5个amc接受初级保健。每个地点的住院诊所主任都参与了基于调查的分析。主要测量:主要暴露是患者是否在教师监督的住院医师和仅教师监督的队列中接受初级保健。结果测量包括住院医师和教师之间结直肠癌和乳腺癌筛查率以及2型糖尿病和高血压的控制。我们还评估了与美国国家科学院在与住院医师实习领导的访谈中定义的高功能初级保健的五个组成部分的一致程度。关键结果:在对社会复杂性的关键差异进行调整后,我们观察到所有五个地点的所有结果的住院医师与教师之间的差异,乳腺癌筛查的差异从0.69(0.62-0.78)到0.71 (0.63-0.80);结直肠癌筛查的RR从0.77(0.68-0.88)到0.90 (0.86-0.93);2型糖尿病控制方面的差异RR从0.82(0.69-0.97)到0.90 (0.86-0.93);高血压控制方面的差异从0.79(0.68-0.91)到0.87(0.79-0.95)。住院医师与教师绩效差异的大小可能与他们在高功能初级保健的五个组成部分存在分歧的可能性有关。结论:住院医师在常规门诊质量指标上的表现低于教师。差异的大小和数量可能与对高功能初级保健组成部分存在的分歧有关。这些发现强调需要在初级保健机构中提供更强大的基础设施支持,以满足患者的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences in Ambulatory Care Outcomes Between Trainees and Faculty: A Multi-center Study.

Background: Academic medical centers (AMCs) provide the nation's most complex care, with no differences in performance between trainees and faculty for inpatient outcomes. Single-center analyses demonstrated low performance on ambulatory outcomes among residents vs. faculty.

Objective: Determine whether resident-faculty ambulatory care performance disparities are a national problem, understand contributing factors present in AMCs.

Design: Retrospective cohort study, survey-based study PARTICIPANTS: A total of 146,961 patients receiving primary care at five AMCs within resident-faculty primary care training practices during calendar year 2019. Resident clinic directors at each of the sites participated in the survey-based analysis.

Main measures: The main exposure was whether the patients received primary care in a faculty-supervised resident vs. faculty-only cohort. Outcome measures included rates of colorectal and breast cancer screening and control of type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension between the resident and faculty cohorts. We also assessed the level of agreement with five components of high-functioning primary care as defined by the National Academies of Sciences in interviews with residency practice leadership.

Key results: After adjustment for key differences in social complexity, we observed resident-faculty disparities across all five sites for all outcomes, with disparities in breast cancer screening from RR 0.69 (0.62-0.78)-0.71 (0.63-0.80); disparities in colorectal cancer screening from RR 0.77 (0.68-0.88) to 0.90 (0.86-0.93); disparities in control of type 2 diabetes mellitus from RR 0.82 (0.69-0.97) to 0.90 (0.86-0.93); and disparities in control of hypertension from RR 0.79 (0.68-0.91) to 0.87 (0.79-0.95). The magnitude of resident-faculty performance disparities may be related to the likelihood of disagreement with the five components of high-functioning primary care.

Conclusions: Residents performed lower than faculty on routine ambulatory quality measures. The magnitude and number of disparities may be related to disagreement on the presence of components of high-functioning primary care. These findings highlight the need for more robust infrastructural support in primary care settings to meet the needs of patients.

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
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Journal of General Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
749
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信