Ami L DeWaters1, Hilda Loria2, Helen Mayo3, Alia Chisty4, Oanh K Nguyen5. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Pennsylvania State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA. adewaters@pennstatehealth.psu.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 3. Department of Health Sciences Digital Library and Learning Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, nearly half of internal medicine residencies have implemented block clinic scheduling; however, the effects on residency-related outcomes are unknown. The authors systematically reviewed the impact of block versus traditional ambulatory scheduling on residency-related outcomes, including (1) resident satisfaction, (2) resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, (3) ambulatory training time, (4) continuity of care, (5) patient satisfaction, and (6) patient health outcomes. METHOD: The authors reviewed the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE InProcess, EBSCO CINAHL, EBSCO ERIC, and the Cochrane Library from inception through March 2017 and included studies of residency programs comparing block to traditional scheduling with at least one outcome of interest. Two authors independently extracted data on setting, participants, schedule design, and the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of 8139 studies, 11 studies of fair to moderate methodologic quality were included in the final analysis. Overall, block scheduling was associated with marked improvements in resident satisfaction (n = 7 studies, effect size range - 0.3 to + 0.9), resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities (n = 5, effect size range + 0.3 to + 2.6), and available ambulatory training time (n = 5). Larger improvements occurred in programs implementing short (1 week) ambulatory blocks. However, block scheduling may result in worse physician continuity (n = 4). Block scheduling had inconsistent effects on patient continuity (n = 4), satisfaction (n = 3), and health outcomes (n = 3). DISCUSSION: Although block scheduling improves resident satisfaction, conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, and ambulatory training time, there may be important tradeoffs with worse care continuity.
BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, nearly half of internal medicine residencies have implemented block clinic scheduling; however, the effects on residency-related outcomes are unknown. The authors systematically reviewed the impact of block versus traditional ambulatory scheduling on residency-related outcomes, including (1) resident satisfaction, (2) resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, (3) ambulatory training time, (4) continuity of care, (5) patient satisfaction, and (6) patient health outcomes. METHOD: The authors reviewed the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE InProcess, EBSCO CINAHL, EBSCO ERIC, and the Cochrane Library from inception through March 2017 and included studies of residency programs comparing block to traditional scheduling with at least one outcome of interest. Two authors independently extracted data on setting, participants, schedule design, and the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of 8139 studies, 11 studies of fair to moderate methodologic quality were included in the final analysis. Overall, block scheduling was associated with marked improvements in resident satisfaction (n = 7 studies, effect size range - 0.3 to + 0.9), resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities (n = 5, effect size range + 0.3 to + 2.6), and available ambulatory training time (n = 5). Larger improvements occurred in programs implementing short (1 week) ambulatory blocks. However, block scheduling may result in worse physician continuity (n = 4). Block scheduling had inconsistent effects on patient continuity (n = 4), satisfaction (n = 3), and health outcomes (n = 3). DISCUSSION: Although block scheduling improves resident satisfaction, conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, and ambulatory training time, there may be important tradeoffs with worse care continuity.
Entities:
Keywords:
X + Y; ambulatory; block; scheduling; systematic review
Authors: Darcy Reed; Eboni G Price; Donna M Windish; Scott M Wright; Aysegul Gozu; Edbert B Hsu; Mary Catherine Beach; David Kern; Eric B Bass Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-06-21 Impact factor: 25.391
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: Eric S Holmboe; Judith L Bowen; Michael Green; Jessica Gregg; Lorenzo DiFrancesco; Eileen Reynolds; Patrick Alguire; David Battinelli; Catherine Lucey; Daniel Duffy Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Francine C Wiest; Timothy G Ferris; Manjusha Gokhale; Eric G Campbell; Joel S Weissman; David Blumenthal Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-11-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Frederick J Meyers; Steven E Weinberger; John P Fitzgibbons; Jeffrey Glassroth; F Daniel Duffy; Charles P Clayton Journal: Acad Med Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 6.893