Background

Medicare has selected 10 hospital-acquired conditions for which it will not reimburse hospitals unless the condition was documented as "present on admission." This "no pay for errors" rule may have a profound effect on the clinical practice of physicians.

Objective

To determine how physicians might change their behavior after learning about the Medicare rule.

Design

We conducted a randomized trial of a brief educational intervention embedded in an online survey, using clinical vignettes to estimate behavioral changes.

Participants

At a university-based internal medicine residency program, 168 internal medicine residents were eligible to participate.

Intervention

Residents were randomized to receive a one-page description of Medicare's "no pay for errors" rule with pre-vignette reminders (intervention group) or no information (control group). Residents responded to five clinical vignettes in which "no pay for errors" conditions might be present on admission.

Main measures

Primary outcome was selection of the single most clinically appropriate option from three clinical practice choices presented for each clinical vignette.

Key results

Survey administered from December 2008 to March 2009. There were 119 responses (71%). In four of five vignettes, the intervention group was less likely to select the most clinically appropriate response. This was statistically significant in two of the cases. Most residents were aware of the rule but not its impact and specifics. Residents acknowledged responsibility to know Medicare documentation rules but felt poorly trained to do so. Residents educated about the Medicare's "no pay for errors" were less likely to select the most clinically appropriate responses to clinical vignettes. Such choices, if implemented in practice, have the potential for causing patient harm through unnecessary tests, procedures, and other interventions.

Medicare has selected 10 hospital-acquired conditions for which it will not reimburse hospitals unless the condition was documented as “present on admission.” This “no pay for errors” rule may have a profound effect on the clinical practice of physicians. To determine how physicians might change their behavior after learning about the Medicare rule. We conducted a randomized trial of a brief educational intervention embedded in an online survey, using clinical vignettes to estimate behavioral changes. At a university-based internal medicine residency program, 168 internal medicine residents were eligible to participate. Residents were randomized to receive a one-page description of Medicare’s “no pay for errors” rule with pre-vignette reminders (intervention group) or no information (control group). Residents responded to five clinical vignettes in which “no pay for errors” conditions might be present on admission. Primary outcome was selection of the single most clinically appropriate option from three clinical practice choices presented for each clinical vignette. Survey administered from December 2008 to March 2009. There were 119 responses (71%). In four of five vignettes, the intervention group was less likely to select the most clinically appropriate response. This was statistically significant in two of the cases. Most residents were aware of the rule but not its impact and specifics. Residents acknowledged responsibility to know Medicare documentation rules but felt poorly trained to do so. Residents educated about the Medicare’s “no pay for errors” were less likely to select the most clinically appropriate responses to clinical vignettes. Such choices, if implemented in practice, have the potential for causing patient harm through unnecessary tests, procedures, and other interventions.

Purpose

Professional and governmental organizations recommend an ideal US physician workforce composed of at least 40 % primary care physicians. They also support primary care residencies to promote careers in primary care. Our study examines the relationship between graduation from a primary care or categorical internal medicine residency program and subsequent career choice.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey of a cohort of internal medicine residency alumni who graduated between 2001 and 2010 from a large academic center. Our primary predictor was graduation from a primary care versus a categorical internal medicine program and our primary outcome is current career role. We performed chi-square analysis comparing responses of primary care and categorical residents.

Results

We contacted 481 out of 513 alumni, of whom 322 responded (67 %). We compared 106 responses from primary care alumni to 169 responses from categorical alumni. Fifty-four percent of primary care alumni agreed that the majority of their current clinical work is in outpatient primary care vs. 20 % of categorical alumni (p < 0.001). While 92.5 % of primary-care alumni were interested in a primary care career prior to residency, only 63 % remained interested after residency. Thirty of the 34 primary care alumni (88 %) who lost interest in a primary care career during residency agreed that their ambulatory experience during residency influenced their subsequent career choice.

Conclusions

A higher percentage of primary care alumni practice outpatient primary care as compared to categorical alumni. Some alumni lost interest in primary care during residency. The outpatient clinic experience may impact interest in primary care.

The Graduate Medical Education (GME) system in the United States (US) has garnered worldwide respect, graduating over 25,000 new physicians from over 8,000 residency and fellowship programs annually. GME is the portal of entry to medical practice and licensure in the US, and the pathway through which resident physicians develop the competence to practice independently and further develop their career plans. The number and specialty distribution of available GME positions shapes the overall composition of our national workforce; however, GME is failing to provide appropriate programs that support the delivery of our society's system of healthcare. This paper, prepared by the Health Policy Education Subcommittee of the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) and unanimously endorsed by SGIM's Council, outlines a set of recommendations on how to reform the GME system to best prepare a physician workforce that can provide high quality, high value, population-based, and patient-centered health care, aligned with the dynamic needs of our nation's healthcare delivery system. These recommendations include: accurate workforce needs assessment, broadened GME funding sources, increased transparency of the use of GME dollars, and implementation of incentives to increase the accountability of GME-funded programs for the preparation and specialty selection of their program graduates.