Assessing The Effectiveness Of Peer Comparisons As A Way To Improve Health Care Quality

Peer Comparison or Guideline-Based Feedback and Postsurgery Opioid Prescriptions: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Excess opioid prescribing after surgery can result in prolonged use and diversion. Email feedback based on social norms may reduce the number of pills prescribed.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of 2 social norm-based interventions on reducing guideline-discordant opioid prescribing after surgery.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at a large health care delivery system in northern California between October 2021 and October 2022 included general, obstetric/gynecologic, and orthopedic surgeons with patients aged 18 years or older discharged to home with an oral opioid prescription.

Interventions

In 19 hospitals, 3 surgical specialties (general, orthopedic, and obstetric/gynecologic) were randomly assigned to a control group or 1 of 2 interventions. The guidelines intervention provided email feedback to surgeons on opioid prescribing relative to institutionally endorsed guidelines; the peer comparison intervention provided email feedback on opioid prescribing relative to that of peer surgeons. Emails were sent to surgeons with at least 2 guideline-discordant prescriptions in the previous month. The control group had no intervention.

Main Outcome and Measures

The probability that a discharged patient was prescribed a quantity of opioids above the guideline for the respective procedure during the 12 intervention months.

Results

There were 38 235 patients discharged from 640 surgeons during the 12-month intervention period. Control-group surgeons prescribed above guidelines 36.8% of the time during the intervention period compared with 27.5% and 25.4% among surgeons in the peer comparison and guidelines arms, respectively. In adjusted models, the peer comparison intervention reduced guideline-discordant prescribing by 5.8 percentage points (95% CI, -10.5 to -1.1; P = .03) and the guidelines intervention reduced it by 4.7 percentage points (95% CI, -9.4 to -0.1; P = .05). Effects were driven by surgeons who performed more surgeries and had more guideline-discordant prescribing at baseline. There was no significant difference between interventions.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cluster randomized clinical trial, email feedback based on either guidelines or peer comparison reduced opioid prescribing after surgery. Guideline-based feedback was as effective as peer comparison-based feedback. These interventions are simple, low-cost, and scalable, and may reduce downstream opioid misuse.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05070338.

A Quality Improvement Initiative to Increase Documentation of Preferences for Life-Sustaining Treatment in Hospitalized Adults

BACKGROUND

Portable Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms allow patients to codify their preferences for life-sustaining treatments across inpatient and outpatient settings. In 2019 only 29.5% of our hospitalized internal medicine patients with an inpatient do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order and no DNR POLST at admission discharged with a DNR POLST. This presented an opportunity to improve POLST completion and avoid undesired or inappropriate care after discharge.

METHODS

Using electronic health record (EHR) data, the authors identified hospitalized adults (age ≥ 50 years) admitted to an internal medicine service with a DNR order and discharged alive. Patient records were cross-referenced with the state's POLST registry for an active POLST form. Among patients with a missing or full-code POLST form at admission, the authors calculated the proportion with a DNR POLST form completed by discharge. These data were tracked over time with control charts to detect performance shifts following three Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles over 34 months, which included a single educational training on electronic POLST navigation, an EHR discharge navigator notification, and quarterly e-mailed individualized performance reports.

RESULTS

The study population (N = 387) was 55.0% male and predominately non-Hispanic white (80.9%). Patients discharging to a skilled nursing facility or hospice were three times more likely to discharge with a DNR POLST compared to patients discharging home. Overall, the proportion of DNR POLST forms completed by discharge increased from 0.36 to 0.60 after three PDSA cycles (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This quality improvement initiative demonstrated improved POLST form completion rates in a target population of adults at elevated risk for readmission and death.

Testing interventions to reduce clinical inertia in the treatment of hypertension: rationale and design of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical inertia, or failure to intensify treatment when indicated, leads to suboptimal blood pressure control. Interventions to overcome inertia and increase antihypertensive prescribing have been modestly successful in part because their effectiveness varies based on characteristics of the provider, the patient, or the provider-patient interaction. Understanding for whom each intervention is most effective could help target interventions and thus increase their impact.

METHODS

This three-arm, randomized trial tests the effectiveness of 2 interventions to reduce clinical inertia in hypertension prescribing compared to usual care. Forty five primary care providers (PCPs) caring for patients with hypertension in need of treatment intensification completed baseline surveys that assessed behavioral traits and were randomized to one of three arms: 1) Pharmacist e-consult, in which a clinical pharmacist provided patient-specific recommendations for hypertension medication management to PCPs in advance of upcoming visits, 2) Social norming dashboards that displayed PCP's hypertension control rates compared to those of their peers, or 3) Usual care (no intervention). The primary outcome was the rate of intensification of hypertension treatment. We will compare this outcome between study arms and then evaluate the association between characteristics of providers, patients, their clinical interactions, and intervention responsiveness.

RESULTS

Forty-five primary care providers were enrolled and randomized: 16 providers and 173 patients in the social norming dashboards arm, 15 providers and 143 patients in the pharmacist e-consult arm, and 14 providers and 150 patients in the usual care arm. On average, the mean patient age was 64 years, 47% were female, and 73% were white. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of patients were similar across arms, with the exception of more Hispanic patients in the usual care arm and fewest in the pharmacist e-consult arm.

CONCLUSIONS

This study can help identify interventions to reduce inertia in hypertension care and potentially identify the characteristics of patients, providers, or patient-provider interactions to understand for whom each intervention would be most beneficial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT, Registered: NCT04603560).

Identifying behaviour change techniques in 287 randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback interventions targeting practice change among healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback (A&F) is among the most widely used implementation strategies, providing healthcare professionals with summaries of their practice performance to prompt behaviour change and optimize care. Wide variability in effectiveness of A&F has spurred efforts to explore why some A&F interventions are more effective than others. Unpacking the variability of the content of A&F interventions in terms of their component behaviours change techniques (BCTs) may help advance our understanding of how A&F works best. This study aimed to systematically specify BCTs in A&F interventions targeting healthcare professional practice change.

METHODS

We conducted a directed content analysis of intervention descriptions in 287 randomized trials included in an ongoing Cochrane systematic review update of A&F interventions (searched up to June 2020). Three trained researchers identified and categorized BCTs in all trial arms (treatment & control/comparator) using the 93-item BCT Taxonomy version 1. The original BCT definitions and examples in the taxonomy were adapted to include A&F-specific decision rules and examples. Two additional BCTs ('Education (unspecified)' and 'Feedback (unspecified)') were added, such that 95 BCTs were considered for coding.

RESULTS

In total, 47/95 BCTs (49%) were identified across 360 treatment arms at least once (median = 5.0, IQR = 2.3, range = 129 per arm). The most common BCTs were 'Feedback on behaviour' (present 89% of the time; e.g. feedback on drug prescribing), 'Instruction on how to perform the behaviour' (71%; e.g. issuing a clinical guideline), 'Social comparison' (52%; e.g. feedback on performance of peers), 'Credible source' (41%; e.g. endorsements from respected professional body), and 'Education (unspecified)' (31%; e.g. giving a lecture to staff). A total of 130/287 (45%) control/comparator arms contained at least one BCT (median = 2.0, IQR = 3.0, range = 0-15 per arm), of which the most common were identical to those identified in treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

A&F interventions to improve healthcare professional practice include a moderate range of BCTs, focusing predominantly on providing behavioural feedback, sharing guidelines, peer comparison data, education, and leveraging credible sources. We encourage the use of our A&F-specific list of BCTs to improve knowledge of what is being delivered in A&F interventions. Our study provides a basis for exploring which BCTs are associated with intervention effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

N/A.

Performance on Patient Experience Measures of Former Chief Medical Residents as Physician Exemplars Chosen by the Profession

Importance

Physicians' knowledge about each other's quality is central to clinical decision-making, but such information is not well understood and is rarely harnessed to identify exemplars for disseminating best practices or quality improvement. One exception is chief medical resident selection, which is typically based on interpersonal, teaching, and clinical skills.

Objective

To compare care for patients of primary care physicians (PCPs) who were former chiefs with care for patients of nonchief PCPs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Using 2010 to 2018 Medicare Fee-For-Service Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey data (response rate, 47.6%), Medicare claims for random 20% samples of fee-for-service beneficiaries, and medical board data from 4 large US states, we compared care for patients of former chief PCPs with care for patients of nonchief PCPs in the same practice using linear regression. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to January 2023.

Exposures

Receiving the plurality of primary care office visits from a former chief PCP.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Composite of 12 patient experience items as primary outcome and 4 spending and utilization measures as secondary outcomes.

Results

The CAHPS samples included 4493 patients with former chief PCPs and 41 278 patients with nonchief PCPs. The 2 groups were similar in age (mean [SD], 73.1 [10.3] years vs 73.2 [10.3] years), sex (56.8% vs 56.8% female), race and ethnicity (1.2% vs 1.0% American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.3% vs 1.9% Asian or Pacific Islander, 4.8% vs. 5.6% Hispanic, 7.3% vs 6.6% non-Hispanic Black, and 81.5% vs. 80.0% non-Hispanic White), and other characteristics. The Medicare claims for random 20% samples included 289 728 patients with former chief PCPs and 2 954 120 patients with nonchief PCPs. Patients of former chief PCPs rated their care experiences significantly better than patients of nonchief PCPs (adjusted difference in composite, 1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.4-2.8; effect size of 0.30 standard deviations (SD) of the physician-level distribution of performance; P = .01), including markedly higher ratings of physician-specific communication and interpersonal skills typically emphasized in chief selection. Differences were large for patients of racial and ethnic minority groups (1.16 SD), dual-eligible patients (0.81 SD), and those with less education (0.44 SD) but did not vary significantly across groups. Differences in spending and utilization were minimal overall.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, patients of PCPs who were former chief medical residents reported better care experiences than patients of other PCPs in the same practice, especially for physician-specific items. The study results suggest that the profession possesses information about physician quality, motivating the development and study of strategies for harnessing such information to select and repurpose exemplars for quality improvement.

The impact of opioid prescribing report cards in Medicaid

BACKGROUND: Performance feedback has been used for decades to improve health care quality and safety, with varying degrees of success. One example is the use of customized report cards that target inappropriate prescribing of high-risk medications, including opioids. Randomized controlled trials suggest that report cards are an effective tool to change opioid prescribing behavior, but their effectiveness in community settings is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of opioid prescribing report cards, which were mailed to Medicaid providers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental approach, we compared trends in opioid prescribing by Medicaid providers in Philadelphia, who received a report card in late 2017, with Medicaid providers in surrounding counties, who did not receive report cards. First, we used propensity score matching to balance observed differences in the treatment and comparison groups; matching variables included provider specialty, sex, and selected characteristics of providers' Medicaid patient panels. We then estimated a difference-in-differences model to isolate the impact of report cards on opioid prescribing. RESULTS: The analytical sample included 1,598 providers in Philadelphia and 2,117 providers in surrounding counties, who prescribed opioids to 99,548 Medicaid patients during the study period. Although the number of Medicaid patients receiving opioids and the days supplied of opioids declined in both Philadelphia and surrounding counties during the study period, there was a larger reduction in Philadelphia Medicaid than in surrounding counties after the report cards were mailed. In the 6 months after the report cards were mailed (January 2018 to June 2018) compared with the 6 months before they were mailed (July 2017 to December 2017), we estimate that the reduction in opioid prescribing in Philadelphia Medicaid amounted to nearly 3 fewer Medicaid patients with an opioid prescription per month. CONCLUSIONS: After customized opioid prescribing report cards were mailed to Medicaid providers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, there was a statistically significant reduction in opioid prescribing to Medicaid patients relative to surrounding counties. Our findings suggest that opioid prescribing report cards with peer comparison are an effective way to influence opioid prescribing behavior among Medicaid providers. Report cards can complement other initiatives that target inappropriate opioid prescribing, such as prescription drug monitoring programs and prior authorization. DISCLOSURES: Drs Candon and Rothbard and Ms Shen received funding from Community Behavioral Health in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Drs Xue, Cole, and Donohue received funding from Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. Neither Community Behavioral Health nor the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services was involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or the decision to submit the report for publication.

When peer comparison information harms physician well-being

Policymakers and business leaders often use peer comparison information—showing people how their behavior compares to that of their peers—to motivate a range of behaviors. Despite their widespread use, the potential impact of peer comparison interventions on recipients’ well-being is largely unknown. We conducted a 5-mo field experiment involving 199 primary care physicians and 46,631 patients to examine the impact of a peer comparison intervention on physicians’ job performance, job satisfaction, and burnout. We varied whether physicians received information about their preventive care performance compared to that of other physicians in the same health system. Our analyses reveal that our implementation of peer comparison did not significantly improve physicians’ preventive care performance, but it did significantly decrease job satisfaction and increase burnout, with the effect on job satisfaction persisting for at least 4 mo after the intervention had been discontinued. Quantitative and qualitative evidence on the mechanisms underlying these unanticipated negative effects suggest that the intervention inadvertently signaled a lack of support from leadership. Consistent with this account, providing leaders with training on how to support physicians mitigated the negative effects on well-being. Our research uncovers a critical potential downside of peer comparison interventions, highlights the importance of evaluating the psychological costs of behavioral interventions, and points to how a complementary intervention—leadership support training—can mitigate these costs.

Effect of Different Interventions to Help Primary Care Clinicians Avoid Unsafe Opioid Prescribing in Opioid-Naive Patients With Acute Noncancer Pain: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Prescription opioids can treat acute pain in primary care but have potential for unsafe use and progression to prolonged opioid prescribing.

Objective

To compare clinician-facing interventions to prevent unsafe opioid prescribing in opioid-naive primary care patients with acute noncancer pain.

Design Setting and Participants

We conducted a multisite, cluster-randomized, 2 × 2 factorial, clinical trial in 3 health care systems that comprised 48 primary care practices and 525 participating clinicians from September 2018 through January 2021. Patient participants were opioid-naive outpatients, 18 years or older, who presented for a qualifying clinic visit with acute noncancer musculoskeletal pain or nonmigraine headache.

Interventions

Practices randomized to: (1) control; (2) opioid justification; (3) monthly clinician comparison emails; or (4) opioid justification and clinician comparison. All groups received opioid prescribing guidelines via the electronic health record at the time of a new opioid prescription.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcome measures were receipt of an initial opioid prescription at the qualifying clinic visit. Other outcomes were opioid prescribing for more than 3 months and a concurrent opioid/benzodiazepine prescription over 12-month follow-up.

Results

Among 22 616 enrolled patient participants (9740 women [43.1%]; 64 American Indian/Alaska Native [0.3%]; 590 Asian [2.6%], 1120 Black/African American [5.0%], 1777 Hispanic [7.9%], 225 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander [1.0%], and 18 981 White [83.9%] individuals), the initial opioid prescribing rates at the qualifying clinic visit were 3.1% in the total sample, 4.2% in control, 3.6% in opioid justification, 2.6% in clinician comparison, and 1.9% in opioid justification and clinician comparison. Compared with control, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for a new opioid prescription was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.46-1.18; P = .20) for opioid justification and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.38-0.96; P = .03) for clinician comparison. Compared with control, clinician comparison was associated with decreased odds of opioid therapy of more than 3 months (aOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91; P = .001) and concurrent opioid/benzodiazepine prescription (aOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P = .04), whereas opioid justification did not have a significant effect.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cluster randomized clinical trial, comparison emails decreased the proportion of opioid-naive patients with acute noncancer pain who received an opioid prescription, progressed to treatment with long-term opioid therapy, or were exposed to concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine therapy. Health care systems can consider adding clinician-targeted nudges to other initiatives as an efficient, scalable approach to further decrease potentially unsafe opioid prescribing.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03537573.

Sustained Implementation of a Multicomponent Strategy to Increase Emergency Department-Initiated Interventions for Opioid Use Disorder

STUDY OBJECTIVE

There is strong evidence supporting emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, but less is known about how to implement this practice. Our aim was to describe implementation, maintenance, and provider adoption of a multicomponent strategy for opioid use disorder treatment in 3 urban, academic EDs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of electronic health record data for adult patients with opioid use disorder-related visits before (March 2017 to November 2018) and after (December 2018 to July 2020) implementation. We describe patient characteristics, clinical treatment, and process measures over time and conducted an interrupted time series analysis using a patient-level multivariable logistic regression model to assess the association of the interventions with buprenorphine use and other outcomes. Finally, we report provider-level variation in prescribing after implementation.

RESULTS

There were 2,665 opioid use disorder-related visits during the study period: 28% for overdose, 8% for withdrawal, and 64% for other conditions. Thirteen percent of patients received medications for opioid use disorder during or after their ED visit overall. Following intervention implementation, there were sustained increases in treatment and process measures, with a net increase in total buprenorphine of 20% in the postperiod (95% confidence interval 16% to 23%). In the adjusted patient-level model, there was an immediate increase in the probability of buprenorphine treatment of 24.5% (95% confidence interval 12.1% to 37.0%) with intervention implementation. Seventy percent of providers wrote at least 1 buprenorphine prescription, but provider-level buprenorphine prescribing ranged from 0% to 61% of opioid use disorder-related encounters.

CONCLUSION

A combination of strategies to increase ED-initiated opioid use disorder treatment was associated with sustained increases in treatment and process measures. However, adoption varied widely among providers, suggesting that additional strategies are needed for broader uptake.

Improving Emergency Department Throughput Using Audit-and-Feedback With Peer Comparison Among Emergency Department Physicians

INTRODUCTION

We sought to determine if audit-and-feedback with peer comparison among emergency physicians is associated with improved emergency department (ED) throughput and decreased variation in physician performance.

METHODS

We implemented an audit-and-feedback with peer comparison tool at a single urban academic ED from March 1, 2013, to July 1, 2018. In the first study period, physicians received no reports. In the second period, they received daily reports. In the third period, they received daily, quarterly, and annual reports. Outcomes included patients per hour, admission rate, time to admission, and time to discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 272,032 patient visits and 36 ED physicians were included. The mean admission rate decreased 6.8%; the mean time to admission decreased 43.8 minutes; and the mean time to discharge decreased 40.6 minutes. Variation among physicians decreased for admission rate, time to admission, and time to discharge. Low-performing outliers showed disproportionately larger improvements in patients per hour, admission rate, time to admission, and time to discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Automated peer comparison reports for academic emergency physicians was associated with lower admission rates, shorter times to admission, and shorter times to discharge at the departmental level, as well as decreased practice variation at the individual level.

Impact on hospital-wide antipsychotic prescribing practices through physician peer comparison letters

Peer comparison is a behavioral strategy that provides feedback to individuals on how they compare with others. It is used to improve health care quality, reduce inappropriate prescribing, and improve physician performance. There is very little data on peer comparison and the impact on system-wide prescribing practices, particularly with antipsychotics. To that end, the Maryland statewide pharmacy and therapeutics committee reviews hospital-level antipsychotic data for 5 facilities on a quarterly basis, including high doses and polypharmacy. One facility, Springfield Hospital Center, consistently stood out in 2016 as having higher rates of high doses of haloperidol, olanzapine, and quetiapine as well as patients receiving 3 or more antipsychotics. The pharmacist began to send out individual letters to the psychiatrists detailing their prescribing habits in these areas compared with other psychiatrists and the other state facilities. Over the course of 4 years, the percentage of patients on high doses of 3 antipsychotics substantially decreased. The percentage of patients on polypharmacy in the facility decreased, but not at the same rate as the other hospitals, leaving the facility even higher than the state average at the end of the 4-year period. Pharmacist-initiated physician peer comparison letters were associated with a considerable decrease in the prevalence of high-dose olanzapine, haloperidol, and quetiapine but did not appear to impact antipsychotic polypharmacy. This type of communication may be beneficial for stimulating system-wide changes in prescribing practices for high doses of antipsychotics; however, more individualized interventions are likely needed to reduce antipsychotic polypharmacy.

How Feedback Is Given Matters: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Patient Satisfaction Feedback Delivery and Physician Well-being

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how variation in the way patient satisfaction feedback is delivered relates to physician well-being and perceptions of its impact on patient care, job satisfaction, and clinical decision making.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional electronic survey was sent to faculty physicians from a large academic medical center in March 29, 2019. Physicians reported their exposure to feedback (timing, performance relative to peers, or channel) and related perceptions. The Professional Fulfillment Index captured burnout and professional fulfillment. Associations between feedback characteristics and well-being or perceived impact were tested using analysis of variance or logistic regression adjusted for covariates.

RESULTS

Of 1016 survey respondents, 569 (56.0%) reported receiving patient satisfaction feedback. Among those receiving feedback, 303 (53.2%) did not believe that this feedback improved patient care. Compared with physicians who never received feedback, those who received any type of feedback had higher professional fulfillment scores (mean, 6.6±2.1 vs 6.3±2.0; P=.03) but also reported an unfavorable impact on clinical decision making (odds ratio [OR], 2.9; 95% CI, 1.8 to 4.7; P<.001). Physicians who received feedback that included one-on-one discussions (as opposed to feedback without this channel) held more positive perceptions of the feedback's impact on patient care (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.0; P=.003), whereas perceptions were less positive in physicians whose feedback included comparisons to named colleagues (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.8; P=.003).

CONCLUSION

Providing patient satisfaction feedback to physicians was associated with mixed results, and physician perceptions of the impact of feedback depended on the characteristics of feedback delivery. Our findings suggest that feedback is viewed most constructively by physicians when delivered through one-on-one discussions and without comparison to peers.

Behavioral Economics: A Primer and Applications to the UN Sustainable Development Goal of Good Health and Well-Being

Behavioral economics (BE) is a relatively new field within economics that incorporates insights from psychology that can be harnessed to improve economic decision making with the potential to enhance good health and well-being of individuals and societies, the third of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. While some of the psychological principles of economic decision making were described as far back as the 1700s by Adam Smith, BE emerged as a discipline in the 1970s with the groundbreaking work of psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. We describe the basic concepts of BE, heuristics (decision-making shortcuts) and their associated biases, and the BE strategies framing, incentives, and economic nudging to overcome these biases. We survey the literature to identify how BE techniques have been employed to improve individual choice (focusing on childhood obesity), health policy, and patient and healthcare provider decision making. Additionally, we discuss how these BE-based efforts to improve health-related decision making can lead to sustaining good health and well-being and identify additional health-related areas that may benefit from including principles of BE in decision making.

Use of an Online Palliative Care Clinical Curriculum to Train U.S. Hospital Staff: 2015-2019

Background: Most clinicians in the United States do not receive pre-professional education in pain and symptom management, communication skills, and caregiver support. The use of these skills by clinicians improves the quality of care for persons living with serious illness and enables the specialty-trained palliative care workforce to focus on patients whose needs are most complex. Objective: To review current trends in hospital use of the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC) online clinical training curriculum. Description: Launched in 2015, CAPC clinical curriculum educates clinicians in the knowledge and skills necessary to improve care for patients with serious illness. CAPC currently offers 43 clinical courses and 4 Designations in recognition of successful completion of training by topic. Results: From January 15, 2015, to August 31, 2019, 26,535 clinicians working in hospitals completed 172,684 clinical courses. Registered nurses represented half of learners, and advanced practice providers were most likely to seek Designation. Physicians made up 22% of all learners; 85% of physician learners came from specialties beyond palliative care. Two of every five U.S. hospitals with more than 300 beds had at least one learner. In post-course evaluations, 84% reported that they will make practice changes as a result, and 70% reported that the content was new. Conclusions: The CAPC clinical curriculum is a widely used and valued method for education in clinical skills specific to the care of people living with serious illness. Findings suggest that an increasing number of hospital leaders recognize the importance of these skills in caring for patients with serious illness and support the necessary training.

Professionalism Revealed: Rethinking Quality Improvement in the Wake of a Pandemic

The pace of health care quality improvement in the United States has been slow. After 2 decades of efforts relying largely on quality measurement and performance-linked payment incentives, we need new ideas and new conversations. As revealed by health care workers’ response to the Covid-19 pandemic, professionalism in health care may be an underused resource. Reframing quality improvement around the linchpin of care delivery — physician agency — could provide much-needed direction by elucidating strategies that address problems of information or motivation when professionals act as agents on their patients’ behalf. These strategies need not rely on measures. Physicians’ collective ability to observe and learn can be better tapped and their intrinsic motivation better supported. This article discusses the inherent limitations of measure-focused approaches, provides a framework for conceiving a next generation of initiatives that aim to improve care by more productively leveraging professionalism, and offers specific directions for policy and practice.