Transforming Graduate Medical Education to Improve Health Care Value
ABSTRACT U.S. health care is too expensive, and its quality too inconsistent. To ensure that health care will be affordable for future generations and appropriate for our burgeoning geriatric population, its delivery and organization must change. Physicians should be in the vanguard of this change, and transforming medical education will be instrumental in preparing tomorrow's physicians to lead the way. Swensen et al. have stated that U.S. physicians must shift from viewing themselves as "nonintegrated, dedicated artisans who eschew standardization" to become leaders of a system that values "wise standardization, meaningful measurement, and respectful reporting."(1) To manage this transition, physicians will . . .
SourceAvailable from: Vera Lúcia Garcia[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study aimed to present the perceptions of curricular changes among dentistry students through the qualitative methodological approach of a case study. A total of 147 students from eight semesters participated. A qualitative research approach was used, with the focus group technique, involving eight phases of the course and addressing the main issues relating to curricular changes. Two categories were identified through content analysis: a) professional practice as care: placing value on content and dental practices in which meanings are grounded in practicing the techniques as a form of care; and b) acceptance of the Brazilian National Health System (SUS) as the learning scenario. A feeling of acceptance of the curricular changes prevailed, although the dimensions of this acceptance need to be determined and the new curriculum needs to be better understood by the subjects involved in the changes, so that it does not become a formal prescriptive document.Interface - Comunicação Saúde Educação 01/2015; 19(52):145-158. DOI:10.1590/1807-57622014.0530
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Few studies have evaluated the common assumption that graduate medical education is associated with increased resource use. To compare resources used in supervised vs attending-only visits in a nationally representative sample of patient visits to US emergency departments (EDs). Cross-sectional study of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2010), a probability sample of US EDs and ED visits. Supervised visits, defined as visits involving both resident and attending physicians. Three ED teaching types were defined by the proportion of sampled visits that were supervised visits: nonteaching ED, minor teaching ED (half or fewer supervised visits), and major teaching ED (more than half supervised visits). Association of supervised visits with hospital admission, advanced imaging (computed tomography, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging), any blood test, and ED length of stay, adjusted for visit acuity, demographic characteristics, payer type, and geographic region. Of 29,182 ED visits to the 336 nonpediatric EDs in the sample, 3374 visits were supervised visits. Compared with the 25,808 attending-only visits, supervised visits were significantly associated with more frequent hospital admission (21% vs 14%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42; 95% CI, 1.09-1.85), advanced imaging (28% vs 21%; aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.51), and a longer median ED stay (226 vs 153 minutes; adjusted geometric mean ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.45), but not with blood testing (53% vs 45%; aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.96-1.46). Of visits to the sample of 121 minor teaching EDs, a weighted estimate of 9% were supervised visits, compared with 82% of visits to the 34 major teaching EDs. Supervised visits in major teaching EDs compared with attending-only visits were not associated with hospital admission (aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.83-1.58), advanced imaging (aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.96-1.53), or any blood test (aOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.79-1.33), but had longer ED stays (adjusted geometric mean ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.53). In a sample of US EDs, supervised visits were associated with a greater likelihood of hospital admission and use of advanced imaging and with longer ED stays. Whether these associations are different in EDs in which more than half of visits are seen by residents requires further investigation.JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 12/2014; 312(22):2394-400. DOI:10.1001/jama.2014.16172 · 30.39 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: US healthcare expenditure per capita far exceeds that of any other nation in the world. Indeed, over the last 15 years, the USA has distantly surpassed most countries in the developed world in total healthcare expenditures per capita with the USA now spending 17.4% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on healthcare ($7960 per capita), compared with only 8.5% of GDP in Japan ($2878 per capita), a distant second. Consequently, by current projections, the US healthcare bill will have ballooned from $2.5 trillion in 2009 to over $4.6 trillion by 2020. Such spending growth rates are unsustainable and the system would soon go broke if not corrected. The drivers of these spending growth rates in US healthcare are several and varied. Indeed, in September 2012, the Institute of Medicine reported that US healthcare squandered $750 billion in 2009 through unneeded care, Byzantine paperwork, fraud and other wasteful activities. Recently, the question was raised as to whether we have too much coronary angioplasty in the USA. In this analysis, we examine these and other various related aspects of US healthcare, make comparisons with other national healthcare delivery systems, and suggest several reengineering modalities to help fix these compellingly glaring glitches and maladies of US healthcare.International Journal of Clinical Practice 09/2014; 68(9). DOI:10.1111/ijcp.12446 · 2.54 Impact Factor