Addressing outpatient continuity for ambulatory training: A novel tool for longitudinal primary care sign out

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore Long ◽  
Andrea Uradu ◽  
Ronald Castillo ◽  
Rebecca Brienza
PEDIATRICS ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 91 (6) ◽  
pp. 1185-1189
Author(s):  
Janice R. Sargent ◽  
Lucy M. Osborn ◽  
Kenneth B. Roberts ◽  
Thomas G. DeWitt

During the past 30 years, there has been an increasing awareness of the importance of ambulatory care training in medical education. The discrepancy between education and practice was pointed out in the General Professional Education Panel report that indicated training was based largely in hospital settings even though the vast majority of doctor-patient encounters do not result in hospitalization.1 Perkoff,2 noting changes in hospital care such as shorter lengths of stay, increased outpatient care, and the need for well-trained primary care physicians, stated that programs need to make a major effort to emphasize clinical teaching in outpatient settings. Recognizing the need for these changes, the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has increased dramatically the requirement in primary care specialties for clinical ambulatory training.3 For pediatrics, these requirements have progressed from the suggestion that clinical training should be obtained in outpatient clinics (1961) to requiring clinical training in primary care clinics weekly for 3 years (1985). The problems in providing good training in ambulatory settings have been well described.2-4 In comparison inpatient teaching, training students and residents in an outpatient clinic is inefficient and costly. One of the methods suggested to address these problems has been to move ambulatory training out of tertiary care centers to community sites.5-9 Many pediatric programs are now using community sites for at least a portion of resident education.10 Alpert et al10 and Greenberg et al,11 although encouraging the use of these sites to reduce the gap between pediatric education and the service delivery system, pointed out that there are no standards for use of community sites.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 447-453
Author(s):  
Robin Klein ◽  
Samantha Alonso ◽  
Caitlin Anderson ◽  
Akanksha Vaidya ◽  
Nour Chams ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Background Specialized primary care internal medicine (PC IM) residency programs and tracks aim to provide dedicated PC training. How programs deliver this is unclear. Objective We explored how PC IM programs and tracks provide ambulatory training. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey from 2012 to 2013 of PC IM program and track leaders via a search of national databases and program websites. We reported PC IM curricular content, clinical experiences, and graduate career pursuits, and assessed correlation between career pursuits and curricular content and clinical experiences. Results Forty-five of 70 (64%) identified PC IM programs and tracks completed the survey. PC IM programs provide a breadth of curricular content and clinical experiences, including a mean 22.8 weeks ambulatory training and a mean 69.4 continuity clinics per year. Of PC IM graduates within 5 years, 55.8% pursue PC or general internal medicine (GIM) careers and 23.1% pursue traditional subspecialty fellowship training. Curricular content and clinical experiences correlate weakly with career choices. PC IM graduates pursuing PC or GIM careers correlated with ambulatory rotation in women's health (correlation coefficient [rho] = 0.36, P = .034) and mental health (rho = 0.38, P = .023) and curricular content in teaching and medical education (rho = 0.35, P = .035). PC IM graduates pursuing subspecialty fellowship negatively correlated with curricular content in leadership and teams (rho = -0.48, P = .003) and ambulatory training time (rho = -0.38, P = .024). Conclusions PC IM programs and tracks largely deliver on the promise to provide PC training and education and produce graduates engaged in PC and GIM.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 119-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Carney ◽  
Erin K. Thayer ◽  
Ryan Palmer ◽  
Ari B. Galper ◽  
Brenda Zierler ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 238212051985929
Author(s):  
Robert J. Fortuna ◽  
Bethany Marston ◽  
Susan Messing ◽  
Gunnar Wagoner ◽  
Tiffany L. Pulcino ◽  
...  

Introduction: Outpatient procedures are an important component of primary care, yet few programs incorporate procedural training into their curriculum. We examined a 4-year procedural curriculum to improve understanding of ambulatory procedures and increase the number of procedures performed. Methods: A total of 56 resident and 8 faculty physicians participated in a procedural curriculum directed at joint injections (knee, shoulder, elbow, trochanteric bursa, carpal tunnel, wrist, and ankle), subdermal contraceptive insertion/removal, skin biopsies, and ultrasound use in primary care. We administered annual surveys and used generalized estimating equations to model changes. Results: Across the 4 years, there was an average 96% response rate. Mean comfort level with the indications for procedures increased for both resident (62.5 to 78.8; P < .0001) and faculty physicians (61.5 to 94.8; P < .0001). Similarly, mean comfort with performing procedures increased for both resident (32.1 to 62.3; P < .0001) and faculty physicians (42.2 to 85.4; P < .0001). Residents’ comfort level performing procedures increased for all individual procedures measured. The mean number of procedures performed per year increased for resident (1.9 to 8.2; P < .0001) and faculty physicians (14.7 to 25.2; P = .087). Conclusions: A longitudinal ambulatory-based procedural curriculum can increase resident and faculty physician understanding and comfort performing primary-care-based procedures. This, in turn, increased the total number of procedures performed.


2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.


ASHA Leader ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 18-19
Author(s):  
Barbara E. Weinstein

Addiction ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 92 (12) ◽  
pp. 1705-1716 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra K. Burge ◽  
Nancy Amodei ◽  
Bernice Elkin ◽  
Selina Catala ◽  
Sylvia Rodriguez Andrew ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document