ArticleAEM education and training2024
Beyond the requirement: A novel patient follow-up report.
Article in AEM education and training, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond the requirement: A novel patient follow-up report.AEM education and training · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Residents are required to participate in practice-based learning and improvement. Most commonly, a resident-initiated patient follow-up log is used to meet the requirement. We sought to provide residents with follow-up information in an efficient, value-added manner via a patient follow-up report (PFUR). Methods: The PFUR is an automated monthly report sent to individual residents via email. It was generated from the electronic medical record and included five categories of cases: patients who were discharged and returned for admission within 72 h, diagnosis-based criteria, patients who expired during the hospital stay, patients who were admitted to or upgraded to the intensive care unit (ICU) within 24 h of admission, and patients independently flagged by the care team for follow-up. The PFURs were analyzed for 6 months after implementation for number and categorization of cases included as well as via survey of the residents. Results: In 6 months, 1078 patients, generating 1155 follow-ups, were included on the PFUR. ICU upgrades were the most represented category (41%), followed by diagnosis-based criteria (30%). Patients who were discharged and admitted within 72 h were least commonly represented on the PFUR (2%). Seventy-eight percent of residents felt that patient follow-ups were valuable to their education and 82% felt that the PFUR impacted the clinical care they provided. The PFUR was preferred by 90% of resident respondents and had an average value rating of 4.38 out of 5. Conclusions: Overall numbers of patient follow-ups significantly increased after implementation of the PFUR. Certain categories were more represented overall and within each class, which has implications for future educational initiatives. After a pilot period, the novel PFUR appears to be more efficient, accessible, and highly valued than the log used previously. Programs looking to maximize the educational benefits of patient follow-ups may consider a similar initiative.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.