How preceptors develop trust in continuity clinic residents and how trust influences supervision: A qualitative study

Introduction To advance in their clinical roles, residents must earn supervisors’ trust. Research on supervisor trust in the inpatient setting has identified learner, supervisor, relationship, context, and task factors that influence trust. However, trust in the continuity clinic setting, where resident roles, relationships, and context differ, is not well understood. We aimed to explore how preceptors in the continuity clinic setting develop trust in internal medicine residents and how trust influences supervision. Methods In this qualitative study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with faculty preceptors from two continuity clinic sites in an internal medicine residency program at an urban academic medical center in the United States from August 2018–June 2020. We analyzed transcripts using thematic analysis with sensitizing concepts related to the theoretical framework of the five factors of trust. Results Sixteen preceptors participated. We identified four key drivers of trust and supervision in the continuity clinic setting: 1) longitudinal resident-preceptor-patient relationships, 2) direct observations of continuity clinic skills, 3) resident attitude towards their primary care physician role, and 4) challenging context and task factors influencing supervision. Preceptors shared challenges to determining trust stemming from incomplete knowledge about patients and limited opportunities to directly observe and supervise between-visit care. Discussion The continuity clinic setting offers unique supports and challenges to trust development and trust-supervision alignment. Maximizing resident-preceptor-patient continuity, promoting direct observation, and improving preceptor supervision of residents’ provision of between-visit care may improve resident continuity clinic learning and patient care.

Lack of recognition and documentation of stress hyperglycemia is a disruptor of optimal continuity of care

Stress hyperglycemia (SH) is a manifestation of altered glucose metabolism in acutely ill patients which worsens outcomes and may represent a risk factor for diabetes. Continuity of care can assess this risk, which depends on quality of hospital clinical documentation. We aimed to determine the incidence of SH and documentation tendencies in hospital discharge summaries and continuity notes. We retrospectively examined diagnoses during a 12-months period. A 3-months representative sample of discharge summaries and continuity clinic notes underwent manual abstraction. Over 12-months, 495 admissions had ≥ 2 blood glucose measurements ≥ 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL), which provided a SH incidence of 3.3%. Considering other glucose states suggestive of SH, records showing ≥ 4 blood glucose measurements ≥ 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) totaled 521 admissions. The entire 3-months subset of 124 records lacked the diagnosis SH documentation in discharge summaries. Only two (1.6%) records documented SH in the narrative of hospital summaries. Documentation or assessment of SH was absent in all ambulatory continuity notes. Lack of documentation of SH contributes to lack of follow-up after discharge, representing a disruptor of optimal care. Activities focused on improving quality of hospital documentation need to be integral to the education and competency of providers within accountable health systems.

Satisfaction of General Versus Specialized Continuity Clinic in Hematology Oncology Fellowship Training: A Survey

Background: At the University of Florida (UF), hematology-oncology (HO) fellows participate in 2 general types of continuity clinic as part of their fellowship training. One clinic, at the Veterans Hospital (VA), allows fellows to care for patients with a variety of hematology oncology diagnoses in a general clinic setting. The other clinic, located at the university site, is disease or system specific (such as breast or GI clinic). Considerable research supports the value of continuity clinic in residency and fellowship training, but the differences in having a general versus specialized clinic for HO fellows have not been explored. The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived differences of general versus specialized continuity clinics by recent HO graduates from UF. Specifically, we were interested in learning which features of a continuity clinic they felt were most impactful for their current clinical practice. Methods: An anonymous survey was sent to the last 6 graduating classes of HO fellows at UF, between years of 2013 and 2018. The survey contained short demographic questions, followed by 5 open ended questions pertaining to the differing continuity clinic experiences. Graduates were asked about their opinions of both the general and specialized clinics during their training at UF. Survey responses were reviewed and coded for common themes by the authors. Results: Of 28 graduating fellows surveyed, 13 responded to the survey (response rate 46%). In thematic review of survey responses, the most common themes that emerged concerned autonomy, level of supervision, and the diversity of the patient population. A majority of respondents felt they had more autonomy and personal responsibility at the VA general clinic, but less direct supervision than at the specialized clinics. They also believed they got a broader exposure to different disease types at the VA general clinic. Surveyed participants also commented on the quality of educational seminars and activities, preceptor expertise and teaching, and ability to observe cutting edge practice and clinical trials. Conclusions: Graduated oncology fellows from UF believe that there is a balance that exists between having autonomy and ownership of their patients versus having adequate supervision. Many believe that having “controlled autonomy” and “as much independence as is safe for patients” is key to a meaningful continuity clinic experience during oncology fellowship training.

Off to a Jump Start: Using Immersive Activities to Integrate Continuity Clinic and Advocacy

BACKGROUND Training in advocacy is an important component of graduate medical education. Several models have been implemented by residency programs to address this objective. Little has been published regarding application of immersive advocacy activities integrated into continuity clinic. OBJECTIVE To create an Integrated Community Health and Child Advocacy Curriculum (ICHCA) by integrating advocacy activities that were immersive and contextualized in a continuity clinic setting and to familiarize interns with continuity clinic immediately at the beginning of their training. METHODS We utilized a socio-constructivist lens, Kern's Six-step curriculum development and a published curriculum mapping tool to create the curriculum. Twenty residents completed ICHCA in 2019. Evaluations from key stakeholders including participants, support staff and attendings were analyzed on four levels of Kirkpatrick's model. We compared results before intervention, immediately following intervention and ten months following intervention. RESULTS We demonstrated improvement in learner satisfaction, knowledge and behaviors with respect to advocacy in the clinical environment. Response rate was 70% (7/10) for attendings, 75% for support staff (15/20) and 72.5% for residents (29/40). Our intervention was feasible, no cost, and required no additional materials or training as it relied on learning in real time. CONCLUSIONS An integrated advocacy curriculum utilizing the mapping tool for curricular design and evaluation is feasible and has value demonstrated by improvements in reaction, knowledge, and behaviors. This model improves understanding of social responsibility and can be implemented similarly in other residency programs.