Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Electronic health records (EHRs) can accelerate documentation and may enhance details of notes, or complicate documentation and introduce errors. Comprehensive assessment of documentation quality requires comparing documentation to what transpires during the clinical encounter itself. We assessed outpatient primary care notes and corresponding recorded encounters to determine accuracy, thoroughness, and several additional key measures of documentation quality. Methods Patients and primary care clinicians across five midwestern primary care clinics of the US Department of Veterans Affairs were recruited into a prospective observational study. Clinical encounters were video-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Using the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) added to other measures, reviewers scored quality of the documentation by comparing transcripts to corresponding encounter notes. PDQI-9 items were scored from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating higher quality. Results Encounters ( N  = 49) among 11 clinicians were analyzed. Most issues that patients initiated in discussion were omitted from notes, and nearly half of notes referred to information or observations that could not be verified. Four notes lacked concluding assessments and plans; nine lacked information about when patients should return. Except for thoroughness, PDQI-9 items that were assessed achieved quality scores exceeding 4 of 5 points. Conclusions Among outpatient primary care electronic records examined, most issues that patients initiated in discussion were absent from notes, and nearly half of notes referred to information or observations absent from transcripts. EHRs may contribute to certain kinds of errors. Approaches to improving documentation should consider the roles of the EHR, patient, and clinician together.

The term qualitative research refers to a family of primarily non-numeric methods for describing, analyzing, and interpreting the lived experiences of people in their day to day lives. Originally developed to study social problems such as poverty, juvenile delinquency, and race relations, qualitative research methods have been used in the health sciences since the 1960s to better understand the socialization of medical professionals and the culture of medical education and practice. More recently, qualitative research has been employed in health services research to address and improve the quality and safety of care. While quantitative researchers generally ask “what” or “how many” questions, qualitative researchers generally ask, “why” or “how”? Publishing qualitative research comes with a number of challenges, among them, manuscript length, unfamiliarity of reviewers with qualitative traditions, and sample sizes that, by design, are difficult to generalize from. In addition, while there is general agreement about the quality of evidence and types of research designs used in quantitative studies, the same is not yet the case for qualitative and mixed methods research although a variety of useful guidelines have recently appeared. From the perspective of journal editors, we raise and offer guidance on three important questions: (1) Is the study under review suitable for this journal? (2) What is the rationale for using qualitative methods to carry out the research? (3) What are editors/reviewers looking for in a qualitative submission? In unpacking the third question, we describe common strategies editors use and challenges that we have encountered in the abstract, background, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions sections of qualitative submissions we and our colleagues have reviewed.

This article details a correction to the article: (Litzelman DK, Gardner A, Einterz RM, Owiti P, Wambui C, Huskins JC, Schmitt-Wendholt KM, Stone GS, Ayuo PO, Inui TS, Cottingham AH, Umoren RA. On Becoming a Global Citizen: Transformative Learning through Global Health Experiences. 'Annals of Global Health'. 2017 May–August; 83(3–4): 596–604. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aogh.2017.07.005. PMC5726429).

IntroductionFaculty development programs encouraging clinician educators’ scholarship have been established at many medical schools. The same is true for programs that address the isolation and loneliness many faculty members feel in their day-to-day clinical work and administration. Few programs have explicitly combined development of scholarship and sense of community.AimThe goals of the Advanced Scholars Program for Internists in Research and Education (ASPIRE) are as follows: (1) provide training in scholarship development including research methods, implementation, and dissemination; (2) provide expert mentoring and support for professional development; and (3) create a greater sense of campus community.SettingASPIRE scholars are clinician educators in the Department of Medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine.Program DescriptionThe program runs 18 months, includes intensive mentoring, covered time for scholars and mentors, resources, and two half-day educational sessions per month focused on scholarship and community development.Program EvaluationInstitutional leaders’ public statements and actions regarding ASPIRE were documented by program leadership. Data collected from ASPIRE mentors and scholars through interviews and free text survey responses were analyzed using an immersion/crystallization approach. Two central themes were identified for both scholars and mentors: benefits and challenges of the program. Benefits included mentors, program design, community development, increased confidence, skills development, improved patient care, and institutional impact. Challenges included time to accomplish the program, balance of community-building and skills development, and lack of a clear path post-ASPIRE.DiscussionCombining skills-based learning with safe psychological space were judged important elements of success for the ASPIRE program. Conversations are ongoing to identify opportunities for scholars who have completed the program to continue to pursue scholarship, expand their skills, and build community. We conclude that the program both is feasible and was well-received. Sustainability and generalizability are important next steps in ensuring the viability of the program.

BACKGROUND:Advance care planning (ACP) is recommended for all persons to ensure that the care they receive aligns with their values and preferences. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate an ACP intervention developed to better meet the needs and priorities of persons with chronic diseases, including mild cognitive impairment. RESEARCH DESIGN:A year-long, pre-post intervention using lay community health workers [care coordinator assistants (CCAs)] trained to conduct and document ACP conversations with patients during home health visits with pre-post evaluation. SUBJECTS:The 818 patients were 74.2 years old (mean); 78% women; 51% African American; 43% white. MEASURES:Documentation of ACP conversation in electronic health record fields and health care utilization outcomes. RESULTS:In this target population ACP documentation rose from 3.4% (pre-CCA training) to 47.9% (post) of patients who had at least 1 discussion about ACP in the electronic health record. In the 1-year preintervention period, there were no differences in admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits between patients who did and did not have ACP discussion. After adjusting for prior hospitalization and ED use histories, ACP discussions were associated with a 34% less probability of hospitalization (hazard ratios, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.45–0.97), and similar effects are apparent on ED use independent of age and prior ED use effects. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with chronic diseases including mild cognitive impairment can engage in ACP conversations with trusted home health care providers. Having ACP conversation is associated with significant reduction in seeking urgent health care and in hospitalizations.

Advance care planning (ACP) increases quality of life and satisfaction with care for those with cancer and their families, yet these important conversations often do not occur. Barriers include patients' and families' emotional responses to cancer, such as anxiety and sadness, which can lead to avoidance of discussing illness-related topics such as ACP. Interventions that address psychological barriers to ACP are needed. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of a mindfulness intervention designed to cultivate patient and caregiver emotional and relational capacity to respond to the challenges of cancer with greater ease, potentially decreasing psychological barriers to ACP and enhancing ACP engagement. The Mindfully Optimizing Delivery of End-of-Life (MODEL) Care intervention provided 12 hours of experiential training to two cohorts of six to seven adults with advanced-stage cancer and their family caregivers (n = 13 dyads). Training included mindfulness practices, mindful communication skills development, and information about ACP. Patient and caregiver experiences of the MODEL Care program were assessed using semistructured interviews administered immediately postintervention and open-ended survey questions delivered immediately and at 4 weeks postintervention. Responses were analyzed using qualitative methods.ResultFour salient themes were identified. Patients and caregivers reported the intervention (1) enhanced adaptive coping practices, (2) lowered emotional reactivity, (3) strengthened relationships, and (4) improved communication, including communication about their disease.Significance of resultsThe MODEL Care intervention enhanced patient and caregiver capacity to respond to the emotional challenges that often accompany advanced cancer and decreased patient and caregiver psychological barriers to ACP.

Community health workers (CHWs) can engage elderly persons in advance care planning (ACP) conversations. We report how trained CHWs used Go Wish cards (GW R cards) to identify patients’ highest priority preferences and evaluated whether engaging in ACP conversations was associated with subsequent health care utilization. A one-year long, pre-post longitudinal design was used to evaluate our educational intervention using mixed-methods. 392 patients (mean of 73.3 years, 82 % women, 48 % African American, 43 % Caucasian) enrolled in the Aging Brain Care (ABC) program and participated in ACP discussions with CHWs. We expanded the role of the ABC’s CHW, who work directly with individuals and caregivers during home visits to monitor bio-psycho-social needs, to include ACP conversations. The CHWs received ACP training, practice with tools such as GW R cards, and support from an electronic health record (EHR) clinical decision support tool. Quantitative measures of patients’ ACP preferences and health care utilization were abstracted from the EHR. Qualitative data about patients’ perceptions of CHWs in facilitating ACP discussions was obtained through semi-structured interviews. Eighty-six patients’ data indicated that they had engaged in a preferences-for-care process using GW R cards. The top-three card choices by patients was attending to spirituality and religious concerns, preparing for end of life, and maintaining personal wholeness. CHWs were able to effectively engage in ACP conversations with patients and GW R cards were a positive way to stimulate discussion of issues previously undiscussed.

Dignity therapy (DT) is designed to address psychological and existential challenges that terminally ill individuals face. DT guides patients in developing a written legacy project in which they record and share important memories and messages with those they will leave behind. DT has been demonstrated to ease existential concerns for adults with advanced-stage cancer; however, lack of institutional resources limits wide implementation of DT in clinical practice. This study explores qualitative outcomes of an abbreviated, less resource-intensive version of DT among participants with advanced-stage cancer and their legacy project recipients. Qualitative methods were used to analyze postintervention interviews with 11 participants and their legacy recipients as well as the created legacy projects. Direct content analysis was used to assess feedback from the interviews about benefits, barriers, and recommendations regarding abbreviated DT. The legacy projects were coded for expression of core values.ResultFindings suggest that abbreviated DT effectively promotes (1) self-expression, (2) connection with loved ones, (3) sense of purpose, and (4) continuity of self. Participants observed that leading the development of their legacy projects promoted independent reflection, autonomy, and opportunities for family interaction when reviewing and discussing the projects. Consistent with traditional DT, participants expressed \"family\" as the most common core value in their legacy projects. Expression of \"autonomy\" was also a notable finding.Significance of resultsAbbreviated DT reduces resource barriers to conducting traditional DT while promoting similar benefits for participants and recipients, making it a promising adaptation warranting further research. The importance that patients place on family and autonomy should be honored as much as possible by those caring for adults with advanced-stage cancer.