Print this page Email this page Users Online: 493 | Click here to view old website
Home About us Editorial Board Search Current Issue Archives Submit Article Author Instructions Contact Us Login 
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 32  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 11-17

Seeking a stable foundation to build on: 1st-Year residents' views of high-value care teaching

1 Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
2 Division of General Internal Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
3 Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Mixed Methods Research Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
4 Division of General Internal Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Correspondence Address:
Kira L Ryskina
12-30 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/efh.EfH_189_17

Rights and Permissions

Background: United States (US) residency programs have been recently mandated to teach the concept of high-value care (HVC) defined as care that balances the benefits of interventions with their harms and costs. We know that reflective practice is a key to successful learning of HVC; however, little is known about resident perceptions of HVC learning. To better inform HVC teaching in graduate medical education, we asked 1st-year residents to reflect on their HVC learning. Methods: We conducted three focus groups (n = 36) and online forum discussion (n = 13) of 1st-year internal medicine residents. A constructivist grounded theory approach was used to assess transcripts for recurrent themes to identify the perspectives of residents shared about HVC learning. Results: Residents perceived their learning of HVC as limited by cultural and systemic barriers that included limited time, fear of missing a diagnosis, perceived expectations of attending physicians, and poor cost transparency. While the residents reported considerable exposure to the construct of HVC, they desired a more consistent framework that could be applied in different situations. In particular, residents reported frustration with variable incentives, objectives, and definitions pertaining to HVC. Suggestions for improvement in HVC teaching outlined three main needs for: (1) a generalizable framework to systematically approach each case that could be later adapted to independent practice; (2) objective real-time data on costs, benefits, and harms of medical interventions; and (3) standardized approach to assess resident competency in HVC. Discussion: As frontline clinicians and the intended target audience for HVC education, 1st-year residents are in a unique position to provide feedback to improve HVC teaching in residency. Our findings highlight the learners' desire for a more systematic approach to HVC teaching that includes the development of a stable generalizable framework for decision-making, objective data, and standardized assessment. These findings contrast current educational interventions in HVC that aim at reducing the overuse of specific practices.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded339    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal