Background

Advocacy is a core value of the medical profession. However, patient advocacy (advocacy) is not uniformly assessed and there are no studies of the behaviors clinical supervisors consider when assessing advocacy.

Objective

To explore how medical students and supervisors characterize advocacy during an internal medicine clerkship, how assessment of advocacy impacted students and supervisors, and elements that support effective implementation of advocacy assessment.

Design

A constructivist qualitative paradigm was used to understand advocacy assessment from the perspectives of students and supervisors.

Participants

Medical students who completed the internal medicine clerkship at UCSF during the 2018 and 2019 academic years and supervisors who evaluated students during this period.

Approach

Supervisor comments from an advocacy assessment item in the medicine clerkship and transcripts of focus groups were used to explore which behaviors students and supervisors deem to be advocacy. Separate focus groups with both students and supervisors examined the impact that advocacy assessment had on students' and supervisors' perceptions of advocacy and what additional context was necessary to effectively implement advocacy assessment.

Key results

Students and supervisors define advocacy as identifying and addressing social determinants of health, recognizing and addressing patient wishes and concerns, navigating the health care system, conducting appropriate evaluation and treatment, and creating exceptional therapeutic alliances. Effective implementation of advocacy assessment requires the creation of non-hierarchical team environments, supervisor role modeling, and pairing assessment with teaching of advocacy skills. Inclusion of advocacy assessment reflects and dictates institutional priorities, shapes professional identity formation, and enhances advocacy skill development for students and their supervisors.

Conclusions

Students and supervisors consider advocacy to be a variety of behaviors beyond identifying and addressing social determinants of health. Effectively implementing advocacy assessment shapes students' professional identity formation, underscoring the critical importance of formally focusing on this competency in the health professions education.

BACKGROUND: Health systems have developed automated telephone call programs to screen and triage patients post-hospital discharge issues and concerns. The aims of our study were to determine whether and how older adults engage with automated post-hospital discharge telephone programs and to describe the prevalence of patient-reported post-discharge issues. METHODS: We identified all telephone calls made by an urban academic medical center as part of a post-hospital discharge program between May 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019. The program used automated telephone outreach to patients or their caregivers that included 11 distinct steps 3 days post-discharge. All adults discharged home from the hospital, were included, and we categorized patients into ≤64 years, 65-84 years, and ≥85 years age groups. We then compared call reach rate, completeness of 11-step calls and patient-reported issues between age groups. RESULTS: Eighteen thousand and seventy six patients were included. More patients 65-84 years old were reached compared to patients ≤64 years old (84.3% vs. 78.9%, AME 5.52%; 95%CI: 3.58%-7.45%). Completion rates of automated calls for those ≥85 years old were also high. Patients ≥85 years old were more likely to have questions about their follow-up plans and need assistance scheduling appointments compared to those ≤64 years old (19.0% vs. 11.9%, AME 7.0% (95%CI: 2.7%-11.3%). CONCLUSION: Post-hospital automated telephone calls are feasible and effective at reaching older adults. Future work should focus on improving discharge communication to ensure older adults are aware of their follow-up plan and appointments.

Written instructions improve patient comprehension of discharge instructions but are often provided only in English even for patients with a non-English language preference (NELP). We implemented standardized written discharge instructions in English, Spanish, and Chinese for hospital medicine patients at an urban academic medical center. Using an interrupted time series analysis, we assessed the impact on medication-related postdischarge questions for patients with English, Spanish, or Chinese language preferences. Of 4013 patients, ∼15% had NELP. Preintervention, Chinese-preferring patients had a 5.6 percentage point higher probability of questions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08, 2.21) compared to English-preferring patients; Spanish-preferring and English-preferring patients had similar rates of questions. Postintervention, English-preferring and Spanish-preferring patients had no significant change; Chinese-preferring patients had a significant 10.9 percentage point decrease in the probability of questions (aOR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.69) thereby closing the disparity. Language-concordant written discharge instructions may reduce disparities in medication-related postdischarge questions for patients with NELP.