Journal of General Internal Medicine

Since FDA approval of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention, attention has been focused on PrEP implementation. The CDC estimates that 1.2 million U.S. adults might benefit from PrEP, but only a minority are using PrEP, so there is a significant unmet need to increase access for those at risk for HIV. Given the large numbers of individuals who have indications for PrEP, there are not enough practicing specialists to meet the growing need for providers trained in providing PrEP. Moreover, since PrEP is a preventive intervention for otherwise healthy individuals, primary care providers (PCPs) should be primary prescribers of PrEP. There are important clinical considerations that providers should take into account when planning to prescribe PrEP, which are highlighted in the clinical case discussed. A growing body of research also suggests that some providers may be cautious about prescribing PrEP because of concerns regarding its “real-world” effectiveness, anticipated unintended consequences associated with its use, and ambiguity as to who should prescribe it. This review summarizes findings from studies that have assessed prescriber behavior regarding provision of PrEP, and offers recommendations on how to optimize PrEP implementation in primary care settings. Development and dissemination of educational interventions for PCPs and potential PrEP users are needed, including improved methods to assist clinicians in identifying appropriate PrEP candidates, and programs to promote medication adherence and access to social and behavioral health services. PCPs are well-positioned to prescribe PrEP and coordinate health-related services to improve the sexual health of their patients, but tailored educational programs are needed.

Disease management (DM) has been promoted to improve health outcomes and lower costs for patients with chronic disease. Unfortunately, most of the studies that support claims of DM’s success suffer from a number of biases, the most important of which is selection bias, or bias in the type of patients enrolling. To quantify the differences between those who do and do not enroll in DM. This was an observational study of the health care use, costs, and quality of care of 27,211 members of a large health insurer who were identified through claims as having asthma, diabetes, or congestive heart failure, were considered to be at high risk for incurring significant claims costs, and were eligible to join a disease management program involving health coaching. We used health coach call records to determine which patients participated in at least one coaching call and which refused to participate. We used claims data for the 12 months before the start of intervention to tabulate costs and utilization metrics. In addition, we calculated HEDIS quality scores for the year prior to the start of intervention. The patients who enrolled in the DM program differed significantly from those who did not on demographic, cost, utilization and quality parameters prior to enrollment. For example, compared to non-enrollees, diabetes enrollees had nine more prescriptions per year and higher HbA1c HEDIS scores (0.70 vs. 0.61, p < 0.001). These findings illuminate the serious problem of selection into DM programs and suggest that the effectiveness levels found in prior evaluations using methodologies that don’t address this may be overstated.

Medical students preparing for the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Exam frequently use the UWorld Step 2 CK Question Bank (QBank). Over 90% of medical students use UWorld QBanks to prepare for at least one USMLE. Although several questions in the QBank mention race, ethnicity, or immigration status, their contributions to the QBank remain underexamined. We conducted a systematic, mixed-methods content analysis to assess whether and how disease conditions might be racialized throughout this popular medical education resource. We screened 3537 questions in the QBank between May 28 and August 11, 2020, for mentions of race, ethnicity, or immigration status. We performed multinomial logistic regression to assess the likelihood of each racial/ethnic category occurring in either the question stem, answer explanation, or both. We used an inductive technique for codebook development and determined code frequencies. We reviewed the frequency and distribution of race or ethnicity in question stems, answer choices, and answer explanations; assessed associations between disease conditions and racial and ethnic categories; and identified whether and how these associations correspond to race-, ethnicity-, or migration-based care. References to Black race occurred most frequently, followed by Asian, White, and Latinx groups. Mentions of race/ethnicity varied significantly by location in the question: Asian race had 6.40 times greater odds of occurring in the answer explanation only (95% CI 1.19–34.49; p < 0.031) and White race had 9.88 times greater odds of occurring only in the question stem (95% CI 2.56–38.08; p < 0.001). Qualitative analyses suggest frequent associations between disease conditions and racial, ethnic, and immigration categories, which often carry implicit or explicit biological and genetic explanations. Our analysis reveals patterns of race-based disease associations that have potential for systematic harm, including promoting incorrect race-based associations and upholding cultural conventions of White bodies as normative.

The term “holdover admissions” refers to patients admitted by an overnight physician and whose care is then transferred to a new primary team the next morning. Descriptions of the holdover process in internal medicine are sparse. To identify important factors affecting the quality of holdover handoffs at an internal medicine (IM) residency program and to compare them to previously identified factors for other handoffs. We undertook a qualitative study using structured focus groups and interviews. We analyzed data using qualitative content analysis. IM residents, IM program directors, and hospitalists at a large academic medical center. A nine-question open-ended interview guide. We identified 13 factors describing holdover handoffs. Five factors—physical space, standardization, task accountability, closed-loop verification, and resilience—were similar to those described in prior handoff literature in other specialties. Eight factors were new concepts that may uniquely affect the quality of the holdover handoff in IM. These included electronic health record access, redundancy, unwritten thoughts, different clinician needs, diagnostic uncertainty, anchoring, teaching, and feedback. These factors were organized into five overarching themes: physical environment, information transfer, responsibility, clinical reasoning, and education. The holdover handoff in IM is complex and has unique considerations for achieving high quality. Further exploration of safe, efficient, and educational holdover handoff practices is necessary.

Many have called for ambulatory training redesign in internal medicine (IM) residencies to increase primary care career outcomes. Many believe dysfunctional, clinic environments are a key barrier to meaningful ambulatory education, but little is actually known about the educational milieu of continuity clinics nationwide. We wished to describe the infrastructure and educational milieu at resident continuity clinics and assess clinic readiness to meet new IM-RRC requirements. National survey of ACGME accredited IM training programs. Directors of academic and community-based continuity clinics. Two hundred and twenty-one out of 365 (62%) of clinic directors representing 49% of training programs responded. Wide variation amongst continuity clinics in size, structure and educational organization exist. Clinics below the 25th percentile of total clinic sessions would not meet RRC-IM requirements for total number of clinic sessions. Only two thirds of clinics provided a longitudinal mentor. Forty-three percent of directors reported their trainees felt stressed in the clinic environment and 25% of clinic directors felt overwhelmed. The survey used self reported data and was not anonymous. A slight predominance of larger clinics and university based clinics responded. Data may not reflect changes to programs made since 2008. This national survey demonstrates that the continuity clinic experience varies widely across IM programs, with many sites not yet meeting new ACGME requirements. The combination of disadvantaged and ill patients with inadequately resourced clinics, stressed residents, and clinic directors suggests that many sites need substantial reorganization and institutional commitment.New paradigms, encouraged by ACGME requirement changes such as increased separation of inpatient and outpatient duties are needed to improve the continuity clinic experience.