Beyond the requirement: A novel patient follow-up report

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AEM Education and Training Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1002/aet2.11042

Jack A. Allan MD, MBA, Zachary Repanshek MD, Megan E. Healy MD, Michael DeAngelis MD, Wayne A. Satz MD, Jacob W. Ufberg MD, Kraftin E. Schreyer MD, MBA

{"title":"Beyond the requirement: A novel patient follow-up report","authors":"Jack A. Allan MD, MBA, Zachary Repanshek MD, Megan E. Healy MD, Michael DeAngelis MD, Wayne A. Satz MD, Jacob W. Ufberg MD, Kraftin E. Schreyer MD, MBA","doi":"10.1002/aet2.11042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Residents are required to participate in practice-based learning and improvement. Most commonly, a resident-initiated patient follow-up log is used to meet the requirement. We sought to provide residents with follow-up information in an efficient, value-added manner via a patient follow-up report (PFUR).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The PFUR is an automated monthly report sent to individual residents via email. It was generated from the electronic medical record and included five categories of cases: patients who were discharged and returned for admission within 72 h, diagnosis-based criteria, patients who expired during the hospital stay, patients who were admitted to or upgraded to the intensive care unit (ICU) within 24 h of admission, and patients independently flagged by the care team for follow-up. The PFURs were analyzed for 6 months after implementation for number and categorization of cases included as well as via survey of the residents.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In 6 months, 1078 patients, generating 1155 follow-ups, were included on the PFUR. ICU upgrades were the most represented category (41%), followed by diagnosis-based criteria (30%). Patients who were discharged and admitted within 72 h were least commonly represented on the PFUR (2%). Seventy-eight percent of residents felt that patient follow-ups were valuable to their education and 82% felt that the PFUR impacted the clinical care they provided. The PFUR was preferred by 90% of resident respondents and had an average value rating of 4.38 out of 5.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Overall numbers of patient follow-ups significantly increased after implementation of the PFUR. Certain categories were more represented overall and within each class, which has implications for future educational initiatives. After a pilot period, the novel PFUR appears to be more efficient, accessible, and highly valued than the log used previously. Programs looking to maximize the educational benefits of patient follow-ups may consider a similar initiative.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":37032,"journal":{"name":"AEM Education and Training","volume":"8 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AEM Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.11042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Residents are required to participate in practice-based learning and improvement. Most commonly, a resident-initiated patient follow-up log is used to meet the requirement. We sought to provide residents with follow-up information in an efficient, value-added manner via a patient follow-up report (PFUR).

Methods

The PFUR is an automated monthly report sent to individual residents via email. It was generated from the electronic medical record and included five categories of cases: patients who were discharged and returned for admission within 72 h, diagnosis-based criteria, patients who expired during the hospital stay, patients who were admitted to or upgraded to the intensive care unit (ICU) within 24 h of admission, and patients independently flagged by the care team for follow-up. The PFURs were analyzed for 6 months after implementation for number and categorization of cases included as well as via survey of the residents.

Results

In 6 months, 1078 patients, generating 1155 follow-ups, were included on the PFUR. ICU upgrades were the most represented category (41%), followed by diagnosis-based criteria (30%). Patients who were discharged and admitted within 72 h were least commonly represented on the PFUR (2%). Seventy-eight percent of residents felt that patient follow-ups were valuable to their education and 82% felt that the PFUR impacted the clinical care they provided. The PFUR was preferred by 90% of resident respondents and had an average value rating of 4.38 out of 5.

Conclusions

Overall numbers of patient follow-ups significantly increased after implementation of the PFUR. Certain categories were more represented overall and within each class, which has implications for future educational initiatives. After a pilot period, the novel PFUR appears to be more efficient, accessible, and highly valued than the log used previously. Programs looking to maximize the educational benefits of patient follow-ups may consider a similar initiative.

查看原文