BACKGROUND: Leaders in medical education have called for redesign of internal medicine training to improve ambulatory care training. 4 + 1 block scheduling is one innovative approach to enhance ambulatory education. AIM: To determine the impact of 4 + 1 scheduling on resident clinic continuity. SETTING: Resident continuity clinic in traditional scheduling in which clinics are scheduled intermittently one-half day per week, compared to 4 + 1 in which residents alternate 1 week of clinic with 4 weeks of an inpatient rotation or elective. PARTICIPANTS: First-year internal medicine residents. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: We measured patient-provider visit continuity, phone triage encounter continuity, and lab follow-up continuity. PROGRAM EVALUATION: In traditional scheduling as opposed to 4 + 1 scheduling, patients saw their primary resident provider a greater percentage; 71.7% vs. 63.0% (p = 0.008). In the 4 + 1 model, residents saw their own patients a greater percentage; 52.1% vs. 37.1% (p = 0.0001). Residents addressed their own labs more often in 4 + 1 model; 90.7% vs. 75.6% (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in handling of triage encounters; 42.3% vs. 35.8% (p = 0.12). DISCUSSION: 4 + 1 schedule improves visit continuity from a resident perspective, and may compromise visit continuity from the patient perspective, but allows for improved laboratory follow-up, which we pose should be part of an emerging modern definition of continuity.
BACKGROUND: Leaders in medical education have called for redesign of internal medicine training to improve ambulatory care training. 4 + 1 block scheduling is one innovative approach to enhance ambulatory education. AIM: To determine the impact of 4 + 1 scheduling on resident clinic continuity. SETTING: Resident continuity clinic in traditional scheduling in which clinics are scheduled intermittently one-half day per week, compared to 4 + 1 in which residents alternate 1 week of clinic with 4 weeks of an inpatient rotation or elective. PARTICIPANTS: First-year internal medicine residents. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: We measured patient-provider visit continuity, phone triage encounter continuity, and lab follow-up continuity. PROGRAM EVALUATION: In traditional scheduling as opposed to 4 + 1 scheduling, patients saw their primary resident provider a greater percentage; 71.7% vs. 63.0% (p = 0.008). In the 4 + 1 model, residents saw their own patients a greater percentage; 52.1% vs. 37.1% (p = 0.0001). Residents addressed their own labs more often in 4 + 1 model; 90.7% vs. 75.6% (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in handling of triage encounters; 42.3% vs. 35.8% (p = 0.12). DISCUSSION: 4 + 1 schedule improves visit continuity from a resident perspective, and may compromise visit continuity from the patient perspective, but allows for improved laboratory follow-up, which we pose should be part of an emerging modern definition of continuity.
Authors: R A Rosenblatt; G E Wright; L M Baldwin; L Chan; P Clitherow; F M Chen; L G Hart Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: John P Fitzgibbons; Donald R Bordley; Lee R Berkowitz; Beth W Miller; Mark C Henderson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-06-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Judith L Bowen; Stephen M Salerno; John K Chamberlain; Elizabeth Eckstrom; Helen L Chen; Suzanne Brandenburg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mark L Wieland; Andrew J Halvorsen; Rajeev Chaudhry; Darcy A Reed; Furman S McDonald; Kris G Thomas Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kris G Thomas; Colin P West; Carol Popkave; Lisa M Bellini; Steven E Weinberger; Joseph C Kolars; Jennifer R Kogan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Maureen D Francis; Mark L Wieland; Sean Drake; Keri Lyn Gwisdalla; Katherine A Julian; Christopher Nabors; Anne Pereira; Michael Rosenblum; Amy Smith; David Sweet; Kris Thomas; Andrew Varney; Eric Warm; David Wininger; Mark L Francis Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2015-03
Authors: Marion Stanley; Bridget O'Brien; Katherine Julian; Sharad Jain; Patricia Cornett; Harry Hollander; Robert B Baron; R Jeffrey Kohlwes Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Paul O'Rourke; Eva Tseng; Karen Chacko; Marc Shalaby; Anne Cioletti; Scott Wright Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Brita Roy; Shobhina G Chheda; Carol Bates; Kathel Dunn; Reena Karani; Lisa L Willett Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Andrew Coyle; Ira Helenius; Christina M Cruz; E Allison Lyons; Natalie May; John Andrilli; M Merav Bannet; Rachel Pinotti; David C Thomas Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2019-04