Blog Feed

You Play the Way You Practice: Training Up the Healthcare Team

By David Farmer, PhD, LPC, LMFT, FNAP

This piece was originally published in the November/December issue of the Tarrant County Physician. You can read find the full magazine here.


This article was sponsored TCMS Publication Committee member Monte Troutman, DO.

In a recent Wednesday afternoon, first year Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine (TCOM) medical students met for the first time with interprofessional student colleagues encompassing eleven health professions. Sequestered at home due to the COVID-19 pandemic, students meet in a ZOOM virtual meeting room. Together they participate in a modified version of the reality show “What Would You Do,” identifying and correcting disrespectful communication and behavior to foster value and respect among interprofessional teammates. Students from Medicine, Pharmacy, Physician Assistant, Physical Therapy, Public Health and Health Administration, Nursing, Social Work, Speech Language Pathology, Athletic Training, and Dietetics from the University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC), TCU, Texas Woman’s University, Texas Wesleyan, and The University of Texas Arlington, practiced competency development in interprofessional teaming to  improve patient and population health outcomes. 

Had it not been for social distancing in response to COVID-19, these students would be meeting in person, in small interprofessional teams on the UNTHSC campus in Fort Worth. These interprofessional student workshops are part of a national initiative to integrate interprofessional education (IPE) into each health profession’s curriculum. IPE is the collaboration among students from two or more healthcare professions to promote teamwork and improve outcomes.1

The purpose of IPE is to prepare health profession students for interprofessional practice by teaching collaborative practice competencies within the context of interprofessional teams. What are those competencies? In 2009, six national education associations of schools of health professions: The American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, The American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), The American Association of Colleges of Nurses, The American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, The American Dental Education Association, and The Schools and Programs of Public Health, formed the Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) to promote IPE. The IPEC released a report of an expert panel in 2011 recommending four core interprofessional collaborative practice competency domains be integrated into health profession education: Values and Ethics for Interprofessional Practice; Interprofessional Practice Roles and Responsibilities; Interprofessional Communication and Teams; and Teamwork for Interprofessional Collaboration.2 IPEC now includes twenty-one national associations. 

At TCOM, the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for effective collaborative practice are being integrated into both the preclinical and clinical years of training in a variety of contexts. 

Integration of these core IPE competencies has been woven into the accreditation standards of the health professions. For Osteopathic Medicine, the American Osteopathic Association’s Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation introduced Standard 6.8: Interprofessional Education for Collaborative Practice, which states that the curriculum of a College of Osteopathic Medicine must prepare osteopathic medical students to function collaboratively on interprofessional health care teams, calling out adherence to the IPEC core IPE competencies.3 For Allopathic Medicine, the AAMC Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) introduced Standard 7.9: Interprofessional Collaborative Skills, which states that the core curriculum must prepare allopathic medical students to function collaboratively on interprofessional health care teams.4 

It is important that IPE occurs across the continuum of undergraduate and graduate pre-clinical and clinical training. A focus on interprofessional teaming is now included in residency training. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) Program provides formative feedback to institutions sponsoring graduate medical education on the effectiveness of resident and fellow engagement in six focused areas for continuous institutional improvement. CLER was established to learn how best to optimize patient safety and clinical quality in clinical environments of teaching institutions and to learn how to best prepare physicians-in-training to meet the needs of a changing health care system.5 In 2019, the CLER Version 2.0 introduced a new focus area—teaming. The new Teaming Pathway requires that the clinical learning environment provides continual interprofessional educational programming on teaming that engages residents, fellows, and faculty members across the continuum of patient care and at all care delivery sites.6 

So why is effective teaming so important? Some health care needs are adequately and efficiently handled by individual practitioners. Not all patients need an interprofessional healthcare team; however, the needs of many patients and populations can be better met by the use of teams.7 Effective collaboration among health profession teams has been found to be a factor in improved quality and safety in patient care.8 An added bonus is that participation in an effective team can be a protective factor for health care providers in reducing burnout.9 The purpose of the team approach is to optimize the special and shared contributions in skills and knowledge of team members, leading to patient needs being met more efficiently.

At TCOM, the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for effective collaborative practice are being integrated into both the preclinical and clinical years of training in a variety of contexts. UNTHSC adopted IPE as an institutional initiative in 2012 with the development of the Department of Interprofessional Education and Practice to lead IPE initiatives. An IPE Curriculum Committee was formed with representation from each of UNTHSC’s colleges and schools along with representation from partnering institutions participating in IPE with UNTHSC. Through this committee, faculty across health professions model effective interprofessional collaboration, working together to create meaningful opportunities for students to learn and practice the competencies necessary for collaborative practice. 

Though COVID has presented new challenges in medical education, innovative learning strategies are being utilized to keep TCOM students engaged in the development of their collaborative practice competencies. Third year TCOM students preparing to enter clinical rotations recently trained in a team development system utilizing Zoom and the virtual game Minecraft to demonstrate process improvement in teamwork, across three virtual simulations. Medical students commented, “This was an engaging and fun way to practice teamwork! Can we have more opportunities to utilize Minecraft?”

IPE has gained momentum across the nation; however, concern has been raised at the absence of authentic models of interprofessional collaboration within the clinical learning environment. The National Collaborative for Improving the Clinical Learning Environment (NCICLE) sponsored a symposium in 2017 to better understand issues related to enhancing the interprofessional clinical learning environment. Symposium attendees were invited by NCICLE and represented education, practice, and leadership across the spectrum of health care. An outcome of the symposium was the expressed concern that interprofessional values taught through IPE at the undergraduate and preprofessional levels are at risk of being lost as new clinicians enter clinical learning environments that reflect traditional approaches to health care delivery that remain siloed and hierarchical in nature.10

Emphasis is being placed nationally on enhancing the clinical learning environment through interprofessional learning to support the continuum of learning between academic and patient care settings.

How can you help? A clear understanding of IPE initiatives within undergraduate and graduate medical education can help clinicians reinforce collaborative practice competencies with students and trainees in the clinical learning environment. We know that the competencies necessary for effective collaborative interprofessional practice must be explicitly taught and modeled. The UNTHSC Department of Interprofessional Education and Practice has created faculty IPE development programs and is piloting an interprofessional collaborative development program for preceptors. Let us know how we can help you and your teams enhance the clinical learning environment. 

References
1 World Health Organization. (2010). Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice. Geneva: WHO Press.

2 Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel. (2011). Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: Report of an expert panel. Washington, D.C.: Interprofessional Education Collaborative.

3 Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation. (2019). Accreditation of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine: COM Continuing Accreditation Standards. Chicago: American Osteopathic Association.

4 Liaison Committee on Medical Education. (2019). Functions and Structure of a Medical School: Standards for Accreditation of Medical Education Programs Leading to the MD Degree. Chicago: Association of American Medical Colleges and American Medical Association.

5 Weiss, K. B., Wagner, R., Bagian, J. P., Newton, R. C., Patow, C. A., & Nasca, T. J. (2013). Advances in the ACGME Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) Program. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 718–721. https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-05-04-44

6 CLER Evaluation Committee. CLER Pathways to Excellence: Expectations for an Optimal Clinical Learning Environment to Achieve Safe and High-Quality Patient Care, Version 2.0. Chicago, IL: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; 2019. doi:10.35425/ACGME.0003

7 Institute of Medicine. (1972).

8 TeamSTEPPS®: (2015). TeamSTEPPS: Evidence Based Research. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Retrieved April 12, 2020, (Available at:) https://www.ahrq.gov/teamstepps/evidence-base/index.html

9 Willard-Grace, R., Hessler, D., Rogers, E., Dube, K., Bodenheimer, T., & Grumbach, K. (2014). Team Structure and Culture Are Associated With Lower Burnout in Primary Care. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 27(2), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2014.02.130215

10 Weiss KB, Passiment M, Riordan L, Wagner R for the National Collaborative for Improving the Clinical Learning Environment IP-CLE Report Work Group. Achieving the Optimal Interprofessional Clinical Learning Environment: Proceedings From an NCICLE Symposium. http://ncicle.org. Published January 18, 2019. doi:10.33385/NCICLE.0002

Tarrant County COVID-19 Activity – 11/17/20

COVID-19 Positive cases: 83,647

COVID-19 related deaths: 802

Recovered COVID-19 cases: 62,507*

Data from Tarrant County Public Heath’s (TCPH) report of COVID-19 activity in Tarrant County, updated Tuesday, November 17, 2020. Find more COVID-19 information from TCPH here.

*These data are provisional and are subject to change at any time.

Deaths and recovered cases are included in total COVID-19 positive cases.

Tarrant County COVID-19 Activity – 11/16/20

COVID-19 Positive cases: 82,915

COVID-19 related deaths: 794

Recovered COVID-19 cases: 62,089*

Data from Tarrant County Public Heath’s (TCPH) report of COVID-19 activity in Tarrant County, updated Monday, November 16, 2020. Find more COVID-19 information from TCPH here.

*These data are provisional and are subject to change at any time.

Deaths and recovered cases are included in total COVID-19 positive cases.

Tarrant County COVID-19 Activity – 11/13/20

COVID-19 Positive cases: 79,431

COVID-19 related deaths: 790

Recovered COVID-19 cases: 60,369*

Data from Tarrant County Public Heath’s (TCPH) report of COVID-19 activity in Tarrant County, updated Friday, November 13, 2020. Find more COVID-19 information from TCPH here.

*These data are provisional and are subject to change at any time.

Deaths and recovered cases are included in total COVID-19 positive cases.

Tarrant County COVID-19 Activity – 11/12/20


COVID-19 Positive cases: 78,029*

COVID-19 related deaths: 784

Recovered COVID-19 cases: 59,725

Data from Tarrant County Public Heath’s (TCPH) report of COVID-19 activity in Tarrant County, updated Thursday, November 12, 2020. Find more COVID-19 information from TCPH here.

*These data are provisional and are subject to change at any time.

Deaths and recovered cases are included in total COVID-19 positive cases.

Tarrant County COVID-19 Activity – 11/6/20

COVID-19 Positive cases: 72,118*

COVID-19 related deaths: 757

Recovered COVID-19 cases: 56,167

Data from Tarrant County Public Heath’s (TCPH) report of COVID-19 activity in Tarrant County, updated Friday, November 6, 2020. Find more COVID-19 information from TCPH here.

*These data are provisional and are subject to change at any time.

Deaths and recovered cases are included in total COVID-19 positive cases.

TMA President: Expanding Broadband Access Will Help Patients

Texas Medical Association (TMA) President Diana L. Fite, MD, addressed the Texas Governor’s Broadband Development Council’s recommendations to create a state broadband plan and develop a funding program to support broadband expansion to unserved areas in Texas.



“TMA supports the Texas Governor’s Broadband Development Council’s call for funding and focused planning, prioritizing this initiative that ultimately could help improve the health of all Texans. 

“Our vast state needs sufficient broadband infrastructure to serve the millions of Texans living in the thousands of square miles of rural area currently without sufficient internet access. Texas physicians know this means not only are those patients likely miles away from a physician and health care but also they’re likely disconnected from telemedicine, a particularly important tool during a pandemic.”

TMA is the largest state medical society in the nation, representing more than 53,000 physician and medical student members. It is located in Austin and has 110 component county medical societies around the state. TMA’s key objective since 1853 is to improve the health of all Texans.

Tarrant County COVID-19 Activity – 11/5/20


COVID-19 Positive cases: 71,166*

COVID-19 related deaths: 753

Recovered COVID-19 cases: 55,543

Data from Tarrant County Public Heath’s (TCPH) report of COVID-19 activity in Tarrant County, updated Thursday, November 5, 2020. Find more COVID-19 information from TCPH here.

*These data are provisional and are subject to change at any time.

Deaths and recovered cases are included in total COVID-19 positive cases.

Tarrant County COVID-19 Activity – 11/3/20

COVID-19 Positive cases: 69,519*

COVID-19 related deaths: 742

Recovered COVID-19 cases: 54,399

Data from Tarrant County Public Heath’s (TCPH) report of COVID-19 activity in Tarrant County, updated Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Find more COVID-19 information from TCPH here.

*These data are provisional and are subject to change at any time.

Deaths and recovered cases are included in total COVID-19 positive cases.

The Last Word

by Robert Bunata, MD – Publications Committee Interim Chair

This piece was originally published in the September/October issue of the Tarrant County Physician. You can read find the full magazine here.


After our first year of college, my little group of high school friends had a summer reunion.  Ed was pursuing literature and publishing, Steve accounting, and Roger a business degree.  We had the following conversation after Roger said, “I have a great idea. You be the doctor and I’ll run the business.”

To that I replied, “Why would I do that?  I’ve watched my father and mother run their business just fine for years. I think I can do it myself with a little help and I’d have control like my dad.” 

“But with smart business practices you could make more money and I’d handle the stress of the paperwork.”

“Granted,” I said, “I might make more money, but that’s not what I want. I want freedom, control, and to do what I’ll be trained for, to take care of patients.  I want to make sure my business runs like I want. And, besides, I’d have to pay your salary as well as mine, meaning I’d have to take home less or charge the patients more.” At that time I failed to add: “Besides, Roger, if I approach my patients with a bill collector they would think I was only interested in making money and not in them.”  

Over the next decade or two, due to the mix of new health insurance companies, specialization, technical development, and lots of greed, medical costs got out of hand and the specter of Roger came back in the form of big business and managed care.  

About 25 years ago, as our autonomy was being eroded, I wrote an article for The Physician advocating that doctors stand up for their rights.  I went so far as to recommend we form a union even though it was illegal.  But I did not have a plan or even an idea of what to actually do.  Business and politics won and they set the agenda for the practice of medicine, and we followed like sheep to the slaughter—literally to the slaughter in the form of burn-out, depression, retirement, and suicide.  

“We should admit that we gave up control of our profession too easily, and let politicians and businesspeople define who we are.”

Two recent articles I read express the same exasperation. Richard Byyny, MD, and George E. Thibault, MD, have recently published a monograph entitled, “Burnout and resilience in our profession.”1 Since I am unable to paraphrase the article satisfactorily, I will quote the part I found most interesting, shortening where possible. 

Our current problems with burnout were anticipated by sociologists who posed that bureaucratic and professional forms of organizing work are fundamentally antagonistic. Medical schools do not yet prepare graduates as practitioners who can best resist the bureaucratic and market forces shaping health care and the care of the patient. 

Physicians experience conflict between what they …should do, and what they have been educated and socialized to do. They have been professionalized for acquiescence, docility, and orthodoxy. They are taught to be more like sheep than cats—ultra-obedient following the rules. They are not taught to be cats—independent activists – … advocating for medical values.

We have prepared physicians to follow the rules; however, whose rules? The rules generated by … (our own) … profession?  Or the rules generated by the organization with different values and objectives?

As a result, physicians see professionalism more about conformity. This creates a conflict in the current health care system and organizations. Physicians seem to be perverting core principles of the profession to a just-follow-the-rules … practice of medical professionalism. We are essentially responsible for the problems we now encounter, especially when the care of the patient is often not the focus.

We need cats who will resist conformity in service of extra-professional forces. The mission … (should be) about saving health care for patients and society and enabling (us) … to care for patients and not experience burnout.

That article was sitting in my mind when I came across another— “After the storm”—by Siddhartha Mukherjee, MD, subtitled, “The pandemic has revealed dire flaws in American medicine. Can we fix them?”2 Mukherjee is an oncologist who won a Pulitzer Prize for his book, The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer. He says he wrote this article to use this tragedy to improve American medicine.  First he discusses the points of failures in the organization and implementation of the medical distribution system, and the tendency to buy the cheapest foreign products (masks, gowns, pharmaceuticals), shunning our local providers. He especially criticizes the underfunding of medical research and public health.   

Then he reaches the most interesting part of the article, an anecdotal story about how he contacted doctors in different parts of the country on Twitter and Facebook to share ideas on treating COVID-19 patients.  In their informal transmissions they shared minute by minute discussions like the cause and treatment of thrombi, or how to best position patients to breathe. That improvised social media exchange drew his attention to the fact our balky, billion-dollar electronic medical record (EMR) system doesn’t provide a medical, but rather a financial database.   

These articles tell us that we need some housekeeping, some specific and some general changes.  By “we” I must emphasize that means every doctor, not just a few with an interest in politics.  This involves not just every doctor’s practice or earnings, but our whole life.  If we don’t work together and improve this, burnout will spread like COVID-19.   

There are many things that need improvement (to my mind too, especially the underfunding of medical research), but I’d like to look at two specific changes to consider.  

The first specific change is improving our EMR system to make it more medically useful. Mukherjee’s anecdote tells our story.  If we compare our EMR to the system in Taiwan— which may or may not be fair given such factors as their size and homogeneity—their electronic health records system made a swift targeted response to COVID-19 possible.3 Although the system was not designed to stop a pandemic, it was nimble enough to be reoriented toward one. The government merged the health card database with information from immigration and customs to send physicians alerts about patients at higher risk for having COVID-19 based on their travel records.  

While the U.S. has come a long way with its use of electronic records, thanks in part to the financial incentives built into the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act of 2009, the sharing of data—so called interoperability between different electronic health record vendors—has lagged. It’s expensive, but shoring up the U.S.’s digital health infrastructure will help improve routine care while empowering us to better respond to future infectious disease outbreaks.4,5,6 

Next specific change, the topic of EOBs, is one of my pet peeves.  Whenever I get an EOB for services I’ve received, the doctor’s charge is high compared to the payment received.  This is especially obvious dealing with Medicare EOBs with approved payments from Medicare being about a third of what the doctor charges.  When physicians see an EOB, we think how we’re being underpaid, but many patients have told me they think it shows the doctor is overcharging.  When I see this, I think this is exactly what “Roger” would have done, and it paints a bad image of doctors.  It makes us look like we’re only interested in making money and not in them.

As you can imagine, the list of improvements we could make can go on forever. But the point is we have to work together to improve the practice of medicine and the lives of doctors. 

Now for the general changes to consider. They are more vague and difficult to enumerate.  In my opinion, we should admit that we gave up control of our profession too easily, and let politicians and businesspeople define who we are. For instance, we should stop ridiculous requirements like having our payments reduced if a patient doesn’t take his medicine. We should take back what is rightfully ours—control of our profession, our practices, and our lives.  A big part of burnout is the feeling of not being in control; the best way to feel like we’re in control is to actually be in control. While I don’t have a detailed plan to do this, identifying the objective is a start. This should be a prime issue on the agenda of the AMA, AOA, TMA, TOMA, and of every doctor.  

Another general change concerns professionalism.  We all know what professionalism means on an individual level: put the patient’s interests ahead of our self-interests. We have all done that at one time or another—missed a Thanksgiving dinner or a child’s soccer game.  But what does professionalism look like on a national level?  What does it mean to put the nation’s patients’ interests ahead of our collective own?  While I have a few ideas I would rather not reveal them now. I am asking each of you to consider the question and write a letter to the editor or send an email with your observations and ideas. You can email us at editor@tcms.org, or mail us at 555 Hemphill St, Fort Worth, 76104.

References
1. http://alphaomegaalpha.org/medprof2015.html

2. After the storm. New Yorker, May 4, 2020

3. https://www.healthit.gov/topic/laws-regulation-and-policy/health-it-legislation

4. https://www.healthit.gov/topic/laws-regulation-and-policy/health-it-legislation

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started