Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22644462›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2012

Outcomes for resident-identified high-risk patients and resident perspectives of year-end continuity clinic handoffs.

Amber T Pincavage, Shana Ratner, Megan L Prochaska, Meryl Prochaska, Julie Oyler, Andrew M Davis, Vineet M Arora

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Residents' final transition: the graduation clinic hand-off.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015
    Article
  12. Article
  13. A survey of primary care resident attitudes toward continuity clinic patient handover.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2014
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Amber T PincavageDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. apincava@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu
Shana Ratner
Megan L Prochaska
Meryl Prochaska
Julie Oyler
Andrew M Davis
Vineet M Arora

Funding

Research Design, Data, and Analytics CoreP30DK092949 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI ELBERT S. HUANG · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092949
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany patients nationwide change their primary care physician (PCP) when internal medicine (IM) residents graduate. Few studies have examined this handoff.

objectiveTo assess patient outcomes and resident perspectives after the year-end continuity clinic handoff

designRetrospective cohort

participantsPatients who underwent a year-end clinic handoff in July 2010 and a comparison group of all other resident clinic patients from 2009-2011. PGY2 IM residents surveyed from 2010-2011. MEASUREMENTS: Percent of high-risk patients after the clinic handoff scheduled for an appointment, who saw their assigned PCP, lost to follow-up, or had an acute visit (ED or hospitalization). Perceptions of PGY2 IM residents surveyed after receiving a clinic handoff.

resultsThirty graduating residents identified 258 high-risk patients. While nearly all patients (97 %) were scheduled, 29 % missed or cancelled their first new PCP visit. Only 44 % of patients saw the correct PCP and six months later, one-fifth were lost to follow-up. Patients not seen by a new PCP after the handoff were less likely to have appropriate follow-up for pending tests (0 % vs. 63 %, P<0.001). A higher mean no show rate (NSR) was observed among patients who missed their first new PCP visit (22 % vs. 16 % NSR, p<0.001) and those lost to follow-up (21 % vs. 17 % NSR, p=0.019). While 47 % of residents worried about missing important data during the handoff, 47 % reported that they do not perceive patients as "theirs" until they are seen by them in clinic.

conclusionsWhile most patients were scheduled for appointments after a clinic handoff, many did not see the correct resident and one-fifth were lost to follow-up. Patients who miss appointments are especially at risk of poor clinic handoff outcomes. Future efforts should improve patient attendance to their first new PCP visit and increase PCP ownership.

Indexed as

Internship and ResidencyPatientsAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInternal MedicineMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient HandoffPhysicians, Primary CareRetrospective StudiesRisk

Identifiers

PMID22644462
PMCPMC3475812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.