Effect of a high value care curriculum on standardized patient exam in the Core Clerkship in Internal Medicine.
Clerkships
High value care
Medical student
Standardized patient
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Oct 2020
15 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
14
05
2020
accepted:
10
10
2020
entrez:
16
10
2020
pubmed:
17
10
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
With almost 20% unnecessary spending on healthcare, there has been increasing interest in high value care defined as the best care for the patient, with the optimal result for the circumstances, delivered at the right price. The American Association of Medical Colleges recommend that medical students are proficient in concepts of cost-effective clinical practice by graduation, thus leading to curricula on high value care. However little is published on the effectiveness of these curricula on medical students' ability to practice high value care. In addition to the standard curriculum, the intervention group received two classroom sessions and three virtual patients focused on the concepts of high value care. The primary outcome was number of tests and charges for tests on standardized patients. 136 students enrolled in the Core Clerkship in Internal Medicine and 70 completed the high value care curriculum. There were no significant differences in ordering of appropriate tests (3.1 vs. 3.2 tests/students, p = 0.55) and inappropriate tests (1.8 vs. 2.2, p = 0.13) between the intervention and control. Students in the intervention group had significantly lower median Medicare charges ($287.59 vs. $500.86, p = 0.04) and felt their education in high value care was appropriate (81% vs. 56%, p = 0.02). This is the first study to describe the impact of a high value care curriculum on medical students' ordering practices. While number of inappropriate tests was not significantly different, students in the intervention group refrained from ordering expensive tests.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
With almost 20% unnecessary spending on healthcare, there has been increasing interest in high value care defined as the best care for the patient, with the optimal result for the circumstances, delivered at the right price. The American Association of Medical Colleges recommend that medical students are proficient in concepts of cost-effective clinical practice by graduation, thus leading to curricula on high value care. However little is published on the effectiveness of these curricula on medical students' ability to practice high value care.
METHODS
METHODS
In addition to the standard curriculum, the intervention group received two classroom sessions and three virtual patients focused on the concepts of high value care. The primary outcome was number of tests and charges for tests on standardized patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
136 students enrolled in the Core Clerkship in Internal Medicine and 70 completed the high value care curriculum. There were no significant differences in ordering of appropriate tests (3.1 vs. 3.2 tests/students, p = 0.55) and inappropriate tests (1.8 vs. 2.2, p = 0.13) between the intervention and control. Students in the intervention group had significantly lower median Medicare charges ($287.59 vs. $500.86, p = 0.04) and felt their education in high value care was appropriate (81% vs. 56%, p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first study to describe the impact of a high value care curriculum on medical students' ordering practices. While number of inappropriate tests was not significantly different, students in the intervention group refrained from ordering expensive tests.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33059679
doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02303-1
pii: 10.1186/s12909-020-02303-1
pmc: PMC7560311
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
365Références
J Hosp Med. 2017 Feb;12(2):102-103
pubmed: 28182806
JAMA. 2014 Nov 26;312(20):2095-6
pubmed: 25322201
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2017 Aug 02;1(2):117-129
pubmed: 30225408
JAMA. 2018 Mar 13;319(10):1024-1039
pubmed: 29536101
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Jul;34(7):1131-1138
pubmed: 30756307
J Hosp Med. 2016 Mar;11(3):217-20
pubmed: 26416013
Clin Teach. 2019 Oct;16(5):513-518
pubmed: 30644162
JAMA. 2014 Dec 10;312(22):2385-93
pubmed: 25490329
Acad Med. 2019 Sep;94(9):1332-1336
pubmed: 31460928
Acad Med. 2018 Oct;93(10):1511-1516
pubmed: 29517522
Acad Med. 2009 Jul;84(7):958-63
pubmed: 19550197