Background

Many internal medicine (IM) programs have reorganized their resident continuity clinics to improve trainees' ambulatory experience. Downstream effects on continuity of care and other clinical and educational metrics are unclear.

Methods

This multi-institutional, cross-sectional study included 713 IM residents from 12 programs. Continuity was measured using the usual provider of care method (UPC) and the continuity for physician method (PHY). Three clinic models (traditional, block, and combination) were compared using analysis of covariance. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to analyze the effect of practice metrics and clinic model on continuity.

Results

UPC, reflecting continuity from the patient perspective, was significantly different, and was highest in the block model, midrange in combination model, and lowest in the traditional model programs. PHY, reflecting continuity from the perspective of the resident provider, was significantly lower in the block model than in combination and traditional programs. Panel size, ambulatory workload, utilization, number of clinics attended in the study period, and clinic model together accounted for 62% of the variation found in UPC and 26% of the variation found in PHY.

Conclusions

Clinic model appeared to have a significant effect on continuity measured from both the patient and resident perspectives. Continuity requires balance between provider availability and demand for services. Optimizing this balance to maximize resident education, and the health of the population served, will require consideration of relevant local factors and priorities in addition to the clinic model.

What was known and gap

Internal medicine programs look for ways to enhance the ambulatory care experience for residents. The ideal model to optimize patient and learner continuity remains elusive.

What is new

A study assessed continuity of care in different ambulatory care models.

Limitations

Lack of randomization; multiple local factors affecting continuity reduce generalizability.

Bottom line

Continuity of care for patients and physicians differed both among the 3 models and for physicians and patients in each model. The optimal approach requires balancing patient and learner considerations.

Continuity between patients and providers is an important tenet of primary care. Recognized as a key mechanism for improved quality of care,1 enhanced continuity is associated with improved patient and provider satisfaction, improved adherence to recommended preventive care, and decreased utilization of the emergency department and hospital.25 

Governing bodies for graduate medical education recognize the importance of providing an ambulatory continuity experience for trainees.6 However, achieving continuity of care in these settings remains a challenge.7 There is variation in resident continuity clinic structure and size, and many trainees feel stressed in the clinic environment.8 

Continuity metrics vary widely among programs, suggesting that structural differences may be important for promoting continuity of care. Previous studies have demonstrated that clinic time and frequency, as well as patient panel size, affect continuity.911 Several structural models have been described and evaluated by internal medicine (IM) residencies throughout the United States.1216 Reports from single institutions with innovative education models show conflicting results in patient-provider continuity.12,17,18 In addition, comparisons between programs are lacking. In this study, we compared continuity of care metrics across programs with distinct structural characteristics.

Study Population and Design

Twelve programs participated in the Educational Innovations Project Ambulatory Collaborative (table 1).1921 Of eligible residents, 98% consented to participate. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso provided oversight. Participating sites received approval from their local Institutional Review Board.

TABLE 1

Educational Innovations Project Ambulatory Collaborative Participating Programs19,20 

Educational Innovations Project Ambulatory Collaborative Participating Programs19,20
Educational Innovations Project Ambulatory Collaborative Participating Programs19,20

The primary aim of this multi-institutional, cross-sectional study was to assess the effect of clinic structure on continuity and other key practice metrics in IM resident continuity clinics. The secondary aim was to analyze determinants of continuity across all programs. The data collection period was September 2010 through May 2011. One institution implemented a long block ambulatory experience, so the time frame at this institution was correspondingly shifted.

Clinic Model

As described in prior studies, program leadership from each institution described their continuity clinic model as falling into 1 of 3 groups: (1) traditional weekly experience; (2) combination, with some weekly experiences plus additional ambulatory block rotations; and (3) block structure with discrete inpatient and ambulatory rotations.19,20 

Key Practice Metrics

Continuity was measured using 2 methods: the usual provider of care method (UPC),22,23 the percentage of visits in which patients were seen by their primary resident; and the continuity for physician method (PHY),10,24 the percentage of visits for residents in which they see their own patients. Panel size was defined as the number of patients followed by each resident in continuity clinic at the end of the data collection period. Ambulatory workload was defined, based on volume, as the total number of patient visits divided by the number of clinics attended for each resident during the study period. Utilization was defined as the average number of visits for patients during the study period.

Statistical Analysis

In the primary analysis, the independent variable was clinic model. UPC, PHY, ambulatory workload, panel size, utilization, and number of clinics in the study period were dependent variables. We compared the 3 clinic models using analysis of covariance. The Tukey studentized range test was used to test for differences among groups.

Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to analyze the effect of practice metrics and clinic model on continuity. In this analysis, UPC and PHY were dependent variables. Panel size, ambulatory workload, utilization, number of clinics in the study period, and clinic model were independent variables. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. We used SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc) for statistical analysis.

Practice data were available for 96% to 97% of the participating residents, varying slightly with the particular measure. Results by clinic model are displayed in table 2. UPC was significantly different across the 3 clinic models, being highest in the block model, midrange in the combination model, and lowest in the traditional model programs. PHY was significantly lower in block model than in combination and traditional programs. Because there was wide variation in utilization across groups, we repeated the analysis controlling for utilization, and differences in UPC and PHY across clinic models remained significant (data not shown). Ambulatory workload was significantly higher in the block model compared with both traditional and combination model programs. Differences in panel size and utilization were significant across all 3 clinic models, as shown in table 2. The number of clinics in the 9-month study period was significantly higher in traditional model compared with both combination and block model programs.

TABLE 2

Continuity Clinic Model, Continuity, and Key Practice Metrics

Continuity Clinic Model, Continuity, and Key Practice Metrics
Continuity Clinic Model, Continuity, and Key Practice Metrics

Results of the secondary analysis evaluating associations between practice metrics, clinic model, and continuity are displayed in tables 3 and 4. As panel size and utilization increase, UPC decreases significantly but PHY increases significantly. As ambulatory workload and number of clinics in the study period increase, UPC increases significantly but PHY decreases significantly. Clinic model was a significant independent variable in the analysis of both UPC and PHY, even after controlling for the other confounding variables. Panel size, ambulatory workload, utilization, number of clinics attended in the study period, and clinic model together accounted for 62% of the variation found in UPC and 26% of the variation found in PHY.

TABLE 3

Multivariable Analysis of the Usual Provider of Care Method

Multivariable Analysis of the Usual Provider of Care Method
Multivariable Analysis of the Usual Provider of Care Method
TABLE 4

Multivariable Analysis of Continuity for Physician Method

Multivariable Analysis of Continuity for Physician Method
Multivariable Analysis of Continuity for Physician Method

Our findings suggest that clinic model is indeed associated with continuity, ambulatory workload, and panel size in IM residency programs. Block model programs have the highest continuity from the patient perspective (UPC) but the lowest continuity from the provider perspective (PHY). Block scheduling typically requires residents to be part of a team and to cover team members' patients. The lower PHY may be explained in part by this team structure. Indeed, a single institution found a similar drop in continuity from the provider perspective after redesign to a block model, but also demonstrated that team continuity was preserved.12 Ambulatory workload and panel size are highest in block model programs, indicating that residents are seeing more patients per session on average and are handling larger panel sizes. It is important to note that, based on our prior research, this increase in workload and panel size appears to occur without detrimental effects on resident or patient satisfaction compared with the traditional model.19,20 

Combination model programs maintain some outpatient availability of resident providers during inpatient rotations and add continuity experiences during ambulatory blocks. This resulted in higher continuity from the patient perspective compared with traditional model programs, although both were lower than block programs. Despite an increased number of clinics during the study period in the traditional model, patients were seen by their primary resident provider only 22% of the time on average. Resident schedules in both the traditional and combination models still tend to require adjustment based on call and other responsibilities, potentially leading to changes in clinic session day or time from week to week. A prior study in the pediatric literature demonstrated that variable day scheduling for continuity clinic resulted in lower continuity from the patient perspective, despite increased time in clinic, which is similar to our results.25 

Continuity is a balance between supply and demand, between the educational needs of residents and the needs of their patients. Factors that increase demand for a set number of appointments with a resident provider, such as higher panel size and utilization, tend to decrease a given patient's chances of seeing their own resident. This is reflected in a lower UPC. On the other hand, factors that increase the supply of appointments, such as increased ambulatory workload and increased number of clinics in the study period, make it easier for a given patient to see his or her assigned resident, thus reflected as an increased UPC. These findings describing associations between panel size, number of clinics, and UPC are consistent with prior literature.9 

PHY measures continuity from a different perspective. This measure reflects the percentage of time that residents see their own patients and has been suggested as the most appropriate measure for continuity when evaluating resident outpatient educational experiences.10 In our study, practice metrics affect PHY in a pattern that appears dichotomous to UPC. As demand on the system increases because of a larger resident panel size or higher utilization, residents are more likely to see their own patients, resulting in an increased PHY. As the supply of appointments increases due to more clinic sessions or increased ambulatory workload with higher volume per session, PHY decreases, indicating that residents are seeing a higher percentage of patients from outside their individual panel. In this situation, the supply of appointments is higher than the demand generated from the resident's individual panel. This enhanced capacity may be important for cross coverage as residents increasingly work together in teams. These findings contrast with prior pediatric literature where continuity for residents (PHY) significantly increased with an increasing number of clinics.10 This difference may be explained in part by discrepancies in the patient population. The majority of visits in this pediatric study were for sick care, whereas chronic illnesses generally predominate in IM.

The outlined practice parameters explain a significant portion of the variation in UPC and PHY, but unidentified factors also play a substantial role. Local factors, such as the supervising attending physician, have been shown to influence continuity.9 Institutional culture and priorities are likely contributing factors, such as training of scheduling staff, timing and frequency of return visits, and no-show rates. Resident factors, such as communication skills, professionalism, and clinical abilities, may also play a role in resident-patient continuity, and is an area for future research.

The study has several limitations. Participating institutions chose their continuity clinic models and were not randomized. The participating programs may not be representative of all programs nationally, although both community and university programs of varying size and regional location were included. There are inherent variations within the categories we called block and combination models. Ambulatory workload was based on volume and was not adjusted for case mix or severity of illness. Finally, there were multiple factors that could not be controlled, such as institutional culture, level of staffing, staff training, clinic scheduling procedures, and use of an electronic health record.

Block model programs demonstrated higher continuity from the patient perspective, while traditional and combination model programs demonstrated higher continuity from the physician perspective. Clinic model, panel size, ambulatory workload, utilization, and number of clinics in the study period are significantly associated with continuity measured from both patient and resident perspectives. Optimizing the balance to maximize resident education, as well as the health of the population served, is an important goal that will require consideration of relevant local factors and priorities in addition to the practice metrics and clinic models we describe.

1.
Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America
.
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
.
Washington, DC
:
National Academies Press
;
2001
.
2.
Cabana
MD
,
Jee
SH.
Does continuity of care improve patient outcomes
?
J Fam Pract
.
2004
;
53
(
12
):
974
980
.
3.
Rodriguez
HP
,
Rogers
WH
,
Marshall
RE
,
Safran
DG.
The effects of primary care physician visit continuity on patients' experiences with care
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2007
;
22
(
6
):
787
793
.
4.
Christakis
DA
,
Wright
JA
,
Koepsell
TD
,
Emerson
S
,
Connell
FA.
Is greater continuity of care associated with less emergency department utilization
?
Pediatrics
.
1999
;
103
(
4, pt 1
):
738
742
.
5.
Delva
D
,
Kerr
J
,
Schultz
K.
Continuity of care: differing conceptions and values
.
Can Fam Physician
.
2011
;
57
(
8
):
915
921
.
6.
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medial Education
.
ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Internal Medicine
. .
7.
Wieland
ML
,
Jaeger
TM
,
Bundrick
JB
,
Mauck
KF
,
Post
JA
,
Thomas
MR
,
et al
.
Resident physician perspectives on outpatient continuity of care
.
J Grad Med Educ
.
2013
;
5
(
4
):
668
673
.
8.
Nadkarni
M
,
Reddy
S
,
Bates
CK
,
Fosburgh
B
,
Babbott
S
,
Holmboe
E.
Ambulatory-based education in internal medicine: current organization and implications for transformation: results of a national survey of resident continuity clinic directors
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2011
;
26
(
1
):
16
20
.
9.
Francis
MD
,
Zahnd
WE
,
Varney
A
,
Scaife
SL
,
Francis
ML.
Effect of number of clinics and panel size on patient continuity for medical residents
.
J Grad Med Educ
.
2009
;
1
(
2
):
310
315
.
10.
McBurney
PG
,
Moran
CM
,
Ector
WL
,
Quattlebaum
TG
,
Darden
PM.
Time in continuity clinic as a predictor of continuity of care for pediatric residents
.
Pediatrics
.
2004
;
114
(
4
):
1023
1027
.
11.
Neher
JO
,
Kelsberg
G
,
Oliveira
D.
Improving continuity by increasing clinic frequency in a residency setting
.
Fam Med
.
2001
;
33
(
10
):
751
755
.
12.
Wieland
ML
,
Halvorsen
AJ
,
Chaudhry
R
,
Reed
DA
,
McDonald
FS
,
Thomas
KG.
An evaluation of internal medicine residency continuity clinic redesign to a 50/50 outpatient-inpatient model
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2013
;
28
(
8
):
1014
1019
.
13.
Chaudhry
SI
,
Balwan
S
,
Friedman
KA
,
Sunday
S
,
Chaundhry
B
,
Dimisa
D
,
et al
.
Moving forward in GME reform: a 4 + 1 model of resident ambulatory training
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2013
;
28
(
8
):
1100
1104
.
14.
Warm
EJ
,
Schauer
DP
,
Diers
T
,
Mathis
BR
,
Neirouz
Y
,
Boex
JR
,
et al
.
The ambulatory long-block: an accreditation council for graduate medical education (ACGME) educational innovations project (EIP)
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2008
;
23
(
7
):
921
926
.
15.
Mariotti
JL
,
Shalaby
M
,
Fitzgibbons
JP.
The 4∶1 schedule: a novel template for internal medicine residencies
.
J Grad Med Educ
.
2010
;
2
(
4
):
541
547
.
16.
Hoskote
S
,
Mehta
B
,
Fried
ED.
The six-plus-two ambulatory care model: a necessity in today's internal medicine residency program
.
J Med Educ Perspectives
.
2012
;
1
(
1
):
16
19
.
17.
Heist
K
,
Guese
M
,
Nikels
M
,
Swigris
R
,
Chacko
K.
Impact of 4 + 1 block scheduling on patient care continuity in resident clinic
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2014
;
29
(
8
):
1195
1199
.
18.
Warm
EJ.
Interval examination: the ambulatory long block
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2010
;
25
(
7
):
750
752
.
19.
Francis
MD
,
Warm
EJ
,
Julian
KA
,
Rosenblum
M
,
Thomas
K
,
Drake
S
,
et al
.
Determinants of patient satisfaction in IM resident continuity clinics: findings of the Educational Innovations Project Ambulatory Collaborative
.
J Grad Med Educ
.
2014
;
6
(
3
):
470
477
.
20.
Francis
MD
,
Thomas
K
,
Langan
M
,
Smith
A
,
Drake
S
,
Gwisdalla
KL
,
et al
.
Clinic design, key practice metrics, and resident satisfaction in internal medicine continuity clinics: findings of the educational innovations project ambulatory collaborative
.
J Grad Med Educ
.
2014
;
6
(
2
):
249
255
.
21.
Mladenovic
J
,
Bush
R
,
Frohna
J.
Internal medicine's Educational Innovations Project: improving health care and learning
.
Am J Med
.
2009
;
122
(
4
):
398
404
.
22.
Breslau
N
,
Reeb
KG.
Continuity of care in a university-based practice
.
J Med Educ
.
1975
;
50
(
10
):
965
969
.
23.
Steinwachs
DM.
Measuring provider continuity in ambulatory care: an assessment of alternative approaches
.
Med Care
.
1979
;
17
(
6
):
551
565
.
24.
Darden
PM
,
Ector
W
,
Moran
C
,
Quattlebaum
T. G.
Comparison of continuity in a resident versus private practice
.
Pediatrics
.
2001
;
108
(
6
):
1263
1268
.
25.
Lerner
C.F
,
Chung
P.J.
Continuity of care in fixed-day versus variable-day resident continuity clinics
.
Acad Pediatr
.
2010
;
10
(
2
):
119
123
.

Author notes

Maureen D. Francis, MD, FACP, is Assistant Dean for Medical Education and Associate Professor, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso; Mark L. Wieland, MD, MPH, is Assistant Professor of Medicine and Consultant, Division of Primary Care Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester; Sean Drake, MD, FACP, is Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency, Henry Ford Hospital, and Clinical Assistant Professor, Wayne State University; Keri Lyn Gwisdalla, MD, is Associate Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency, Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center/Phoenix VAHCS, and Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine–Phoenix; Katherine A. Julian, MD, is Professor of Clinical Medicine and Track Director, Primary Care General Internal Medicine Residency Program, University of California, San Francisco; Christopher Nabors, MD, is Assistant Professor and Associate Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency, New York Medical College at Westchester Medical Center; Anne Pereira, MD, MPH, FACP, is Assistant Dean for Clinical Education and Associate Professor of Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine; Michael Rosenblum, MD, FACP, is Director, Baystate Internal Medicine Residency Programs, and Assistant Clinical Professor, Tufts University School of Medicine; Amy Smith, MS, is Instructor, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison; David Sweet, MD, FACP, is Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency, Summa Health System and Professor, Internal Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University; Kris Thomas, MD, is Associate Professor of Medicine, Consultant in the Division of Primary Care Internal Medicine, and Associate Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency, Mayo Clinic, Rochester; Andrew Varney, MD, is Professor of Clinical Medicine and Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine; Eric Warm, MD, FACP, is Professor of Medicine and Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency, University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center; David Wininger, MD, is Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency and Associate Professor of Clinical Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center; and Mark L. Francis, MD, MS, is Professor, Medical Education, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso.

Funding: The authors report no external funding source for this study.

Conflict of interest: The authors report they have no competing interests.

The authors would like to thank the following people for their contributions to the design of the study and data management at the participating institutions: Jayne Peterson, MD, Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center; Reva Kleppel, MSW, MPH, Baystate Medical Center; Michael Langan, MD, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center; Lynn Clough, PhD, Summa Health System/NEOMED; Rebecca Shunk, MD, Maya Dulay, MD, and Pat O'Sullivan, PhD, University of California, San Francisco; and Bennett Vogelman, MD, and Robert Holland, MD, University of Wisconsin. We would also like to thank Melchor Ortiz, PhD, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso, for his assistance in the initial management of the data. Lastly, we extend our gratitude to the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine for providing administrative support for the project and meeting space for the EIP Ambulatory Collaborative.