Report: Variations in quality of care a ‘hidden’ curriculum for new doctors

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

HarveyCushing

Full Member
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
1,377
Reaction score
4
What do you think about the notion that quality of care is an important factor regarding residency training? It is an interesting concept, but not sure what effect it will have on the way one trains and eventually practices when finished with residency.


Report: Variations in quality of care a ‘hidden’ curriculum for new doctors at teaching hospitals


By Chelsea Conaboy, Globe Staff

Medical students have a lot to consider when deciding where to pursue a residency placement, including faculty credentials, hospitals’ financial stability, location, cost of living, and more. A new report from the Dartmouth Atlas Project suggests that they add another factor to the list: How do teaching hospitals stack up on quality of care?

The report looked at 23 teaching hospitals across the country and used Medicare data to compare them on metrics such as the frequency with which patients develop new infections during a hospital stay and how often patients at the end of life are referred for hospice care.

Wide variations point to a “hidden training curriculum” that can have a “profound effect” on how doctors are taught to treat patients, the report says.

For more than two decades, the Dartmouth Atlas Project has been using Medicare records to evaluate health care quality. The new report is specifically designed as a tool for medical students. It gives each hospital a score judging the “intensity” of care for patients who are dying that accounts for days spent in the hospital and the number of doctor visits in the last two years of life.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center had the highest score, three time that of hospitals at the low end. In this case, a low score is better.

“Hospitals providing a higher intensity of care are not necessarily providing higher quality care or better patient experiences,” co-author Dr. Anita Arora, a recent graduate of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, said in a press release.

The report, which also examines surgical rates and patient satisfaction, includes some of the most popular training programs in the country, including Johns Hopkins Hospital, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and the Cleveland Clinic. Scores for Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s hospitals generally were in line with national averages.

The list demonstrates that even hospitals with excellent reputations may fall short in certain quality measures, said Dr. David Goodman, a principal investigator on the Atlas project director of the Center for Health Policy Research at the Dartmouth Institute.

“Medical students should consider these differences when they select their training programs,” he said. “Teaching hospitals need to continue to improve the quality of care and not be complacent about the care that they’re providing.”

Dr. Joanne Conroy, chief health care officer for the Association of American Medical Colleges, said some of the results seemed contradictory. Mount Sinai Medical Center in Chicago, for example, is home to leaders in end-of-life care but is noted as having a low percentage of patients enrolled in hospice care, she said.

Conroy said she thinks the report may be a good conversation starter for leaders within the teaching hospitals, but not a definitive tool for students. “There aren’t ultimate answers in it,” she said.

This is not the first report to point to hospital culture and performance as a “hidden” aspect of doctor training. Conroy said the term is “loaded” and one she avoids. But some scholars in medical education have popularized it in recent years, often using it to describe how doctors in training can be affected by team dynamics and mentors’ bedside manner.

Research in recent years has tied hospital culture to quality of care and medical training. Though she has concerns about the Dartmouth report, Conroy said the issue is an important one that should be studied.

Her organization is considering starting a project with Kaiser Permanente in California to examine whether physicians trained within the California health care system practice differently than doctors trained elsewhere, even when they move on to other hospitals.

http://www.boston.com/whitecoatnote...g-hospitals/CGdrLdXtCgy3qFJwhi7t9I/story.html
 
Quality of care is not a 'hidden curriculum', it is part of the actual curriculum everywhere. ACGME mandates quality improvement training and research projects from every resident program. As far as choosing your program based on federal quality measures, it seems like a pretty bad idea. Ranks extremely low down on whether or not you will receive quality training as it is so dependent on things like patient population and comorbids, quality of ancillary staff and facilities, etc.
 
Quality of care is not a 'hidden curriculum', it is part of the actual curriculum everywhere. ACGME mandates quality improvement training and research projects from every resident program. As far as choosing your program based on federal quality measures, it seems like a pretty bad idea. Ranks extremely low down on whether or not you will receive quality training as it is so dependent on things like patient population and comorbids, quality of ancillary staff and facilities, etc.


Which I think is the very point.
 
Quality of care is not a 'hidden curriculum', it is part of the actual curriculum everywhere. ACGME mandates quality improvement training and research projects from every resident program. As far as choosing your program based on federal quality measures, it seems like a pretty bad idea. Ranks extremely low down on whether or not you will receive quality training as it is so dependent on things like patient population and comorbids, quality of ancillary staff and facilities, etc.

Wait....every residency program has to do a mandatory research project? 🙁
 
Wait....every residency program has to do a mandatory research project? 🙁

Yes, in its infinite wisdom the ACGME has declared that all residents must undertake some kind of project based around "quality" or "evidence based medicine." fortunately it doesnt have to be some big blown out study or paper or anything like that.
 
Oh ok, that's a relief. I was dreading having to do mandatory research, but at least its something small and hopefully not horrid like how I usually view research.
 
Which I think is the very point.

What's the point? Your going to pick your program based on its rate of bedsores? I'm missing something. Your criteria should be based mainly on quality of training, breadth of experience, access to faculty in different specialties, operative volume, fellowship opportunities, location, and about a million other things before you start worrying about "quality of care" defined by a panel of bureaucrats. Some of those terrible quality score hospitals are the best places to learn medicine.
 
What's the point? Your going to pick your program based on its rate of bedsores? I'm missing something. Your criteria should be based mainly on quality of training, breadth of experience, access to faculty in different specialties, operative volume, fellowship opportunities, location, and about a million other things before you start worrying about "quality of care" defined by a panel of bureaucrats. Some of those terrible quality score hospitals are the best places to learn medicine.

Agree 100%

These "quality scores" are a joke in terms of defining the best place to learn medicine. Usually these "quality scores" have more to do with nursing practices rather than physician practices i.e. turning patients to avoid bedsores, making sure everyone gets TED stockings to prevent DVTs, etc.

If you want to go to a hospital with good "quality" scores so they can make you follow a nurse around to turn patietns over in bed or adjust their compression stockings, be my guest. :laugh:
 
What's the point? Your going to pick your program based on its rate of bedsores? I'm missing something. Your criteria should be based mainly on quality of training, breadth of experience, access to faculty in different specialties, operative volume, fellowship opportunities, location, and about a million other things before you start worrying about "quality of care" defined by a panel of bureaucrats. Some of those terrible quality score hospitals are the best places to learn medicine.



I would never recommend a medical student to select a residency based solely on "quality scores." Neither would the Darmouth Institute. Residency program location, training curriculum, fellowship availability, research opportunities....etc. are all important. However after reading the report I think there is something important regarding better understanding the clinical culture of the academic medical center and certain characteristics that they have.

The report only includes 23 academic centers, so obviously it ins't all inclusive. However it raises some interesting questions. It points out that certain academic centers are more aggressive in treating the chronically ill at the end of life and it also shows the frequency patients undergo surgical procedures when other treatment options are available. This would have a big impact on residency if you are a medicine or surgical resident at one of these institutions. This also impacts how you will practice medicine when you are out on your own. I'm not saying that one type of training is better than another (I don't believe the report is either), but that a medical student might want to consider these aspects when they look for a program and the culture that it uses. Other than going for a sub-I rotation, not sure how else one would become aware of this?


fv5cY.png



Ix9PZ.png



http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/downloads/reports/Residency_report_103012.pdf
 
I would never recommend a medical student to select a residency based solely on "quality scores." Neither would the Darmouth Institute. Residency program location, training curriculum, fellowship availability, research opportunities....etc. are all important. However after reading the report I think there is something important regarding better understanding the clinical culture of the academic medical center and certain characteristics that they have.

The report only includes 23 academic centers, so obviously it ins't all inclusive. However it raises some interesting questions. It points out that certain academic centers are more aggressive in treating the chronically ill at the end of life and it also shows the frequency patients undergo surgical procedures when other treatment options are available. This would have a big impact on residency if you are a medicine or surgical resident at one of these institutions. This also impacts how you will practice medicine when you are out on your own. I'm not saying that one type of training is better than another (I don't believe the report is either), but that a medical student might want to consider these aspects when they look for a program and the culture that it uses. Other than going for a sub-I rotation, not sure how else one would become aware of this?


fv5cY.png



Ix9PZ.png



http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/downloads/reports/Residency_report_103012.pdf

2 gripes about this

First is- of those people who said they would like to spend the last 6 months of their life at home, how many would say (if asked in a different question) they wanted very aggressive measures taken for diagnosis or treatment of a late stage cancer if it was found? I'm guessing there would probably be a significant overlap, and unfortunately you can't have your cake and eat it too. As far as knowing when your last 6 months of life is, that's best figured out using the retrospectoscope... usually a hospice referral goes more like "You've got a very serious and late stage disease, and the likelihood of this being cured is very low. We can offer treatments to extend your life possibly or make your disease burdened lessened or we can just focus on keeping you comfortable" which some patients see as "we can treat this or we can give up," which this quote makes it seem like we can present a patient with a hospice referral and say "I've seen in my medtronic crystal ball that you have exactly 6 months to live from this date regardless of what we do". Don't get me wrong, I love hospice programs, used to volunteer for one before med school, and I think we are too aggressive with too many patients however it's not as simple as that survey makes it see.

Second- regarding the ICU stay it's similar- you will tell a patient "oh we can not send you to the ICU and you will die, or we can send you and you may die or may not die but you will definitely have more $$ in hospital bills (which if you mentioned the cost of healthcare some staff would be absolutely appalled) and more pain/suffering" and after they hear "you may die or you may not die" everything else cuts off and they want that hope that they will pull through this.

basically I think a decent amount of patients don't really know what the hell they want in the sense that they want some kind of magic scenario with clear choices and very clear predictions
 
I agree 110% at Mattchiavelli's post above... I see and deal with a lot of end of life cases and it's always a tug of war with the patient, their family, their understanding and expectations even if you give them all the facts.
 
I don't disagree with you. But I think the data just shows that different institutions go about "business" differently in terms of the culture which directly impacts how you will eventually practice. Not a good or bad thing. Just different. It has always been mentioned the difference between East coast and West coast medicine.

They pointed out that places like Cedars Sinai and NY Presbytarian provide more aggressive care than University of Utah or Mayo. This isn't bad or good. Just different.


Same with ICU at UCLA vs UMich. Different culture and different way of doing things. Both are tertiary care centers that have high acuity of care yet UCLA had 3X the ICU related deaths. Or Hopkins where 50% of patients were treated with hospice during the last 6 months of life vs 23% at Mount Sinai.

You can draw your own conclusions regarding the implications of this data. But for me it points out that institutions do actually have their own cultures in place which might affect how aggressive certain care might be for end of life or the use of hospice. This will directly impact how a resident approaches how they care for patients and will practice on their own. Not everyone will care about this but I found it interesting. YMMV.
 
I don't disagree with you. But I think the data just shows that different institutions go about "business" differently in terms of the culture which directly impacts how you will eventually practice. Not a good or bad thing. Just different. It has always been mentioned the difference between East coast and West coast medicine.

They pointed out that places like Cedars Sinai and NY Presbytarian provide more aggressive care than University of Utah or Mayo. This isn't bad or good. Just different.

Actually it is either good or bad. Increasingly aggressive (and expensive) care is good if it improves patient outcomes. It's bad if it's spending more money and inflicting more suffering without an improvement in outcomes. Also, residents that train at a place where everything is done to maximize reimbursement are going to learn that style of medicine which up until now has been a good thing for those residents. With the coming demise of fee for service and rise of the ACOs, physicians who are used to practicing in less-aggressively interventional systems are going to be more viable. It will increasingly (and rapidly) become financially difficult to provide aggressive care without strong justification that it improves outcomes.
 
Top