The COVID-19 Pandemic as an Opportunity for Operational Innovation at 2 Student-Run Free Clinics.
Journal of primary care & community health
; 12: 2150132721993631
Building Bridges Between Community Health Centers and Academic Medical Centers in a COVID-19 Pandemic.
Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
2021; 34 (Supplement): S229–S232
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent county shelter-in-place order forced the Cardinal Free Clinics (CFCs), Stanford University's 2 student-run free clinics, to close in March 2020. As student-run free clinics adhering to university-guided COVID policies, we have not been able to see patients in person since March of 2020. However, the closure of our in-person operations provided our student management team with an opportunity to innovate. In consultation with Stanford's Telehealth team and educators, we rapidly developed a telehealth clinic model for our patients. We adapted available telehealth guidelines to meet our patient care needs and educational objectives, which manifested in 3 key innovations: reconfigured clinic operations, an evidence-based social needs screen to more effectively assess and address social needs alongside medical needs, and a new telehealth training module for student volunteers. After 6 months of piloting our telehealth services, we believe that these changes have made our services and operations more robust and provided benefit to both our patients and volunteers. Despite an uncertain and evolving public health landscape, we are confident that these developments will strengthen the future operations of the CFCs.
View details for DOI 10.1177/2150132721993631
View details for PubMedID 33615883
Identifying Opportunities to Improve Intimate Partner Violence Screening in a Primary Care System.
2018; 50 (9): 702–5
The threat to the public health of the United States from the COVID-19 pandemic is causing rapid, unprecedented shifts in the health care landscape. Community health centers serve the patient populations most vulnerable to the disease yet often have inadequate resources to combat it. Academic medical centers do not always have the community connections needed for the most effective population health approaches. We describe how a bridge between a community health center partner (Roots Community Health Center) and a large academic medical center (Stanford Medicine) brought complementary strengths together to address the regional public health crisis. The 2 institutions began the crisis with an overlapping clinical and research faculty member (NKT). Building on that foundation, we worked in 3 areas. First, we partnered to reach underserved populations with the academic center's newly developed COVID test. Second, we developed and distributed evidence-based resources to these same communities via a large community health navigator team. Third, as telemedicine became the norm for medical consultation, the 2 institutions began to research how reducing the digital divide could help improve access to care. We continue to think about how best to create enduring partnerships forged through ongoing deeper relationships beyond the pandemic.
View details for DOI 10.3122/jabfm.2021.S1.200182
View details for PubMedID 33622844
An Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Beliefs and Practice Patterns for Community Providers Compared to Academic Providers.
Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
2018; 25 (1): 1073274818806900
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a silent epidemic affecting one in three women. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine IPV screening for women of childbearing age, but actual rates of screening in primary care settings are low. Our objectives were to determine how often IPV screening was being done in our system and whether screening initiated by medical assistants or physicians resulted in more screens.METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review to investigate IPV screening practices in five primary care clinics within a university-based network in Northern California. We reviewed 100 charts from each clinic for a total of 500 charts. Each chart was reviewed to determine if an IPV screen was documented, and if so, whether it was done by the medical assistant or the physician.RESULTS: The overall frequency of IPV screening was 22% (111/500). We found a wide variation in screening practices among the clinics. Screening initiated by medical assistants resulted in significantly more documented screens than screening delivered by physicians (74% vs 9%, P<0.001).CONCLUSIONS: IPV screening is an important, but underdelivered service. Using medical assistants to deliver IPV screening may be more effective than relying on physicians alone.
View details for PubMedID 30307590
Patient and primary care provider attitudes and adherence towards lung cancer screening at an academic medical center.
Preventive medicine reports
2017; 6: 17-22
Despite guidelines recommending annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer, uptake remains low due to the perceived complexity of initiating and maintaining a clinical program-problems that likely magnify in underserved populations. We conducted a survey of community providers at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in Santa Clara County, California, to evaluate provider-related factors that affect adherence. We then compared these findings to academic providers' (APs) LDCT screening knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes at an academic referral center in the same county. The 4 FQHCs enrolled care for 80 000 patients largely of minority descent and insured by Medi-Cal. Of the 75 FQHC providers (FQHCPs), 36 (48%) completed the survey. Of the 36 providers, 8 (22%) knew screening criteria. Fifteen (42%) FQHCPs discussed LDCT screening with patients. Compared to 36 APs, FQHCPs were more concerned about harms, false positives, discussion time, patient apathy, insurance coverage, and a lack of expertise for screening and follow-up. Yet, more FQHCPs thought screening was effective (27 [75%] of 36) compared to APs ( P = .0003). In conclusion, provider knowledge gaps are greater and barriers are different for community clinics caring for underserved populations compared to their academic counterparts, but practical and scalable solutions exist to enhance adoption.
View details for PubMedID 30375235
Immersion medicine programme for secondary students.
The clinical teacher
Low dose CT (LDCT) for lung cancer screening is an evidence-based, guideline recommended, and Medicare approved test but uptake requires further study. We therefore conducted patient and provider surveys to elucidate factors associated with utilization. Patients referred for LDCT at an academic medical center were questioned about their attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs on lung cancer screening. Adherent patients were defined as those who met screening eligibility criteria and completed a LDCT. Referring primary care providers within this same medical system were surveyed in parallel about their practice patterns, attitudes, knowledge and beliefs about screening. Eighty patients responded (36%), 48 of whom were adherent. Among responders, non-Hispanic patients (p = 0.04) were more adherent. Adherent respondents believed that CT technology is accurate and early detection is useful, and they trusted their providers. A majority of non-adherent patients (79%) self-reported an intention to obtain a LDCT in the future. Of 36 of 87 (41%) responding providers, only 31% knew the correct lung cancer screening eligibility criteria, which led to a 37% inappropriate referral rate from 2013 to 2015. Yet, 75% had initiated lung cancer screening discussions, 64% thought screening was at least moderately effective, and 82% were interested in learning more of the 33 providers responding to these questions. Overall, patients were motivated and providers engaged to screen for lung cancer by LDCT. Non-adherent patient "procrastinators" were motivated to undergo screening in the future. Additional follow through on non-adherence may enhance screening uptake, and raising awareness for screening eligibility through provider education may reduce inappropriate referrals.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.01.012
View details for PubMedID 28210538
View details for PubMedCentralID PMC5304233
An Academic Achievement Calculator for Clinician-Educators in Primary Care.
2017; 49 (8): 640–43
Although the proportion of ethnicities representing under-represented minorities in medicine (URM) in the general population has significantly increased, URM enrolment in medical schools within the USA has remained stagnant in recent years.This study sought to examine the effect of an immersion in community medicine (ICM) programme on secondary school students' desire to enter the field of medicine and serve their communities. The authors asked all 69 ICM alumni to complete a 14-question survey consisting of six demographic, four programme and four career questions, rated on a Likert scale of 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree), coupled with optional free-text questions. Data were analysed using GraphPad prism and nvivo software.A total of 61 students responded, representing a response rate of 88.4 per cent, with a majority of respondents (73.7%) from URM backgrounds. An overwhelming majority of students agreed (with a Likert rating of 4 or 5) that the ICM programme increased their interest in becoming a physician (n = 56, 91.8%). Students reported shadowing patient-student-physician interactions to be the most useful (n = 60, 98.4%), and indicated that they felt that they would be more likely to lead to serving the local community as part of their future careers (n = 52, 85.3%). Of the students that were eligible to apply to medical school (n = 13), a majority (n = 11, 84.6%) have applied to medical school. URM enrolment in medical schools within the USA has remained stagnant in recent years DISCUSSION: Use of a community medicine immersion programme may help encourage secondary students from URM backgrounds to gain the confidence to pursue a career in medicine and serve their communities. Further examination of these programmes may yield novel insights into recruiting URM students to medicine.
View details for PubMedID 28805356
Fulfilling outpatient medicine responsibilities during internal medicine residency: a quantitative study of housestaff participation with between visit tasks
BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION
Academic medical centers need better ways to quantify the diverse academic contributions of primary care clinician-educators. We examined the feasibility and acceptability of an "academic achievement calculator" that quantifies academic activities using a point system.A cohort of 16 clinician-educators at a single academic medical center volunteered to assess the calculator using a questionnaire. Key measures included time needed to complete the calculator, how well it reflected participants' academic activities, whether it increased their awareness of academic opportunities, whether they intend to pursue more academic work, and their overall satisfaction with the calculator.Most participants (69%) completed the calculator in less than 20 minutes. Three-quarters (75%) reported that the calculator reflected the breadth of their academic work either "very well" or "extremely well". The majority (81%) stated that it increased their awareness of opportunities for academic engagement, and that they intend to pursue more academic activities. Overall, three-quarters (75%) were "very satisfied" or "extremely satisfied" with the calculator.To our knowledge, this is the first report of a tool designed to quantify the diverse academic activities of primary care clinician-educators. In this pilot study, we found that the use of an academic achievement calculator may be feasible and acceptable. This tool, if paired with an annual bonus plan, could help incentivize and reward academic contributions among primary care clinician-educators, and assist department leaders with the promotion process.
View details for PubMedID 28953298
Internal Medicine residents experience conflict between inpatient and outpatient medicine responsibilities. Outpatient "between visit" responsibilities such as reviewing lab and imaging data, responding to medication refill requests and replying to patient inquiries compete for time and attention with inpatient duties. By examining Electronic Health Record (EHR) audits, our study quantitatively describes this balance between competing responsibilities, focusing on housestaff participation with "between visit" outpatient responsibilities.We examined EHR log-in data from 2012-2013 for 41 residents (R1 to R3) assigned to a large academic center's continuity clinic. From the EHR log-in data, we examined housestaff compliance with "between visit" tasks, based on official clinic standards. We used generalized estimating equations to evaluate housestaff compliance with between visit tasks and amount of time spent on tasks. We examined the relationship between compliance with between visit tasks and resident year of training, rotation type (elective or required) and interest in primary care.Housestaff compliance with logging in to complete "between visit" tasks varied significantly depending on rotation, with overall compliance of 45 % during core inpatient rotations compared to 68 % during electives (p = 0.01). Compliance did not significantly vary by interest in primary care or training level. Once logged in, housestaff spent a mean 53 min per week logged in while on electives, compared to 55 min on required rotations (p = 0.90).Our study quantitatively highlights the difficulty of attending to outpatient responsibilities during busy core inpatient rotations, which comprise the bulk of residency at our institution and at others. Our results reinforce the need to continue development and study of innovative systems for coverage of "between visit" responsibilities, including shared coverage models among multiple residents and shared coverage models between residents and clinic attendings, both of which require a balance between clinic efficiency and resident ownership, autonomy and learning.
View details for DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0665-6
View details for PubMedID 27160008