Can We Learn in the Sandbox Together?: Interprofessional Case Conferences as Facilitation Tools

Duke Medicine utilized interprofessional case conferences (ICCs) from 2008-2012 with the objective of modeling and facilitating development of teamwork skills among diverse health profession students, including physical therapy, physician assistant, medical doctor and nursing. The purpose of this publication was to describe the operational process used to develop and implement the ICCs and measure the success of the ICCs in order to shape future work. The ICCs were offered to develop skills and attitudes essential for participation in healthcare teams. Students were facilitated by faculty of different professions to conduct a comprehensive historical assessment of a standardized patient (SP), determine pertinent physical and lab assessments to undertake, and develop and share a comprehensive management plan. Cases included patient problems that were authentic and relevant to each professional student in attendance. The main barriers to implementation are outlined and the focus on the process of working together is highlighted. Evaluation showed high satisfaction rates among participants and the outcomes from these experiences are presented. The limitations of these results are discussed and recommendations for future assessment are emphasized. The ICCs demonstrated that students will come together voluntarily to learn in teams, even at a research-focused institution, and express benefit from the collaborative exercise.

Clinician judgment vs formal scales for predicting intracerebral hemorrhage outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of formal prognostic instruments vs subjective clinical judgment with regards to predicting functional outcome in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). METHODS: This prospective observational study enrolled 121 ICH patients hospitalized at 5 US tertiary care centers. Within 24 hours of each patient's admission to the hospital, one physician and one nurse on each patient's clinical team were each asked to predict the patient's modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months and to indicate whether he or she would recommend comfort measures. The admission ICH score and FUNC score, 2 prognostic scales selected for their common use in neurologic practice, were calculated for each patient. Spearman rank correlation coefficients (r) with respect to patients' actual 3-month mRS for the physician and nursing predictions were compared against the same correlation coefficients for the ICH score and FUNC score. RESULTS: The absolute value of the correlation coefficient for physician predictions with respect to actual outcome (0.75) was higher than that of either the ICH score (0.62, p = 0.057) or the FUNC score (0.56, p = 0.01). The nursing predictions of outcome (r = 0.72) also trended towards an accuracy advantage over the ICH score (p = 0.09) and FUNC score (p = 0.03). In an analysis that excluded patients for whom comfort care was recommended, the 65 available attending physician predictions retained greater accuracy (r = 0.73) than either the ICH score (r = 0.50, p = 0.02) or the FUNC score (r = 0.42, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Early subjective clinical judgment of physicians correlates more closely with 3-month outcome after ICH than prognostic scales.