Analyzing the time and value of housestaff inpatient work

OBJECTIVE: To determine time allocation and the perceived value to education and patient care of the weekday activities of internal medicine housestaff on inpatient rotations and to compare the work activities of interns and residents. DESIGN: An observational study. We classified activities along five dimensions (association, location, activity, time, and value), developed a computer-assisted self-interview survey, and demonstrated its face and content validity, internal consistency, and interrater reliability. Subjects were assigned survey computers for 5 consecutive weekdays over a 24-week period, into which they entered data when prompted several times a day. SETTING: The medical service of a university-affiliated Veterans Administration Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty housestaff (36 interns, 24 residents) rotating on the inpatient wards. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed activities according to content (direct patient care, indirect patient care, education), association, and location. Likert-scale ratings of perceived value to education and patient care were also obtained. Housestaff provided complete responses to 3,812 (95%) of 3,992 prompts by a median of 11 seconds; 93% of responses were logically consistent across the measured dimensions. Housestaff spent more time in indirect patient care (56%) than in direct patient care (14%) or educational activities (45%). Formal educational activities had the highest educational value (66 on 0–100 scale), and direct care had the highest value to patient care (81). Over 30% of time was spent in administrative activities, which had low educational value (40). Compared with residents, interns allocated significantly less time to educational activities (38% vs 57%) and more time to lower-value activities such as documentation (19% vs 12%). CONCLUSIONS: Improved data collection methods demonstrate that housestaff in our program, particularly interns, spend much of their workday in activities that are low in educational and patient care value. Selective elimination or delegation of such activities would preserve higher-value experiences during reductions in overall inpatient training time. Planners can use automated random sampling to guide the rational redesign of housestaff work. Support for this work was provided by the Western Region of the Veterans Administration (Ambulatory Care and Education Initiative, 94–04), the Veterans Administration Center for the Study of Provider Behavior, and the RAND Graduate School. Dr. Bozzette is a Senior Research Associate of the HSR&D Service, Department of Veterans Affairs.     

Specialty training and specialization among physicians who treat HIV/AIDS in the United States

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of specialty training and experience in the care of HIV disease with HIV-specific knowledge, referral patterns, and HIV-related education activities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: The United States. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians caring for patients in the HIV Costs and Service Utilization Study, a study of a probability sample of HIV-infected individuals in the United States. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measures included physicians' reports of specialty training and HIV caseload, scores on an HIV-specific knowledge test, referral patterns, and attendance rates at HIV-related educational activities. Approximately 72% (379) of the eligible physicians completed a survey. Of these, 152 (40%) had infectious disease (ID) training, and 213 (56%) were generalists; 4% of ID-trained physicians and 37% of generalist physicians did not consider themselves HIV experts. The median current caseloads were 150 and 200 patients for ID experts and generalist experts, respectively. In contrast, the median caseload for non-expert generalists was 5. Mean scores on the knowledge scale were similar for ID and generalist experts (9.0 items correct out of 11 vs 8.5; P=not significant), but lower for generalist non-experts (6.5 items correct; P <.01). Experts had attended more local and national HIV meetings than non-experts (9.3 vs 2.7; P <.01, and 2.3 vs.40; P <.01, respectively) in the past year. Fewer ID experts ever referred than generalist experts (13.0% vs 27.3%; P=.01). In multivariable models that included specialty training and caseload, physicians with caseloads of 20 to 49 and >50 were more likely to have a high knowledge score (defined as 80% or more correct, odds ratio [OR], 2.8; P=.04 and OR, 5.7; P <.001, respectively), and the effect of specialty was attenuated (OR, 2.7; P=.02 decreased from OR, 7.8; P <.001 in a model without caseload). In the models predicting referral practices, both experience (OR,.25; P <.01 and OR,.17; P <.01 for caseloads of 20 to 49 and >50, respectively) and specialty (OR,.19; P <.01 and OR,.09; P <.01 for generalist and ID experts, respectively) were significant. CONCLUSIONS: In a national sample of physicians, HIV-specific knowledge was more strongly associated with HIV caseload than with specialty training. In addition, although referral practices were related to both experience and specialty, generalist experts and ID physicians reported similar behaviors. This suggests that generalist physicians, through clinical experience and self-education, can develop specialized knowledge in HIV care.