The Impact of Block Ambulatory Scheduling on Internal Medicine Residencies: a Systematic Review

Ami L. DeWaters, Hilda Loria, Helen Goetsch Mayo, Alia Chisty, Oanh K Nguyen

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Over the past decade, nearly half of internal medicine residencies have implemented block clinic scheduling; however, the effects on residency-related outcomes are unknown. The authors systematically reviewed the impact of block versus traditional ambulatory scheduling on residency-related outcomes, including (1) resident satisfaction, (2) resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, (3) ambulatory training time, (4) continuity of care, (5) patient satisfaction, and (6) patient health outcomes. Method: The authors reviewed the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE InProcess, EBSCO CINAHL, EBSCO ERIC, and the Cochrane Library from inception through March 2017 and included studies of residency programs comparing block to traditional scheduling with at least one outcome of interest. Two authors independently extracted data on setting, participants, schedule design, and the outcomes of interest. Results: Of 8139 studies, 11 studies of fair to moderate methodologic quality were included in the final analysis. Overall, block scheduling was associated with marked improvements in resident satisfaction (n = 7 studies, effect size range − 0.3 to + 0.9), resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities (n = 5, effect size range + 0.3 to + 2.6), and available ambulatory training time (n = 5). Larger improvements occurred in programs implementing short (1 week) ambulatory blocks. However, block scheduling may result in worse physician continuity (n = 4). Block scheduling had inconsistent effects on patient continuity (n = 4), satisfaction (n = 3), and health outcomes (n = 3). Discussion: Although block scheduling improves resident satisfaction, conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, and ambulatory training time, there may be important tradeoffs with worse care continuity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Internship and Residency
Internal Medicine
Inpatients
Continuity of Patient Care
Outpatients
MEDLINE
Health
Patient Satisfaction
Libraries
Appointments and Schedules
Databases
Physicians
Conflict (Psychology)

Keywords

  • ambulatory
  • block
  • scheduling
  • systematic review
  • X + Y

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

The Impact of Block Ambulatory Scheduling on Internal Medicine Residencies : a Systematic Review. / DeWaters, Ami L.; Loria, Hilda; Mayo, Helen Goetsch; Chisty, Alia; Nguyen, Oanh K.

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{91393f84380942f78063f67196190775,
title = "The Impact of Block Ambulatory Scheduling on Internal Medicine Residencies: a Systematic Review",
abstract = "Background: Over the past decade, nearly half of internal medicine residencies have implemented block clinic scheduling; however, the effects on residency-related outcomes are unknown. The authors systematically reviewed the impact of block versus traditional ambulatory scheduling on residency-related outcomes, including (1) resident satisfaction, (2) resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, (3) ambulatory training time, (4) continuity of care, (5) patient satisfaction, and (6) patient health outcomes. Method: The authors reviewed the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE InProcess, EBSCO CINAHL, EBSCO ERIC, and the Cochrane Library from inception through March 2017 and included studies of residency programs comparing block to traditional scheduling with at least one outcome of interest. Two authors independently extracted data on setting, participants, schedule design, and the outcomes of interest. Results: Of 8139 studies, 11 studies of fair to moderate methodologic quality were included in the final analysis. Overall, block scheduling was associated with marked improvements in resident satisfaction (n = 7 studies, effect size range − 0.3 to + 0.9), resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities (n = 5, effect size range + 0.3 to + 2.6), and available ambulatory training time (n = 5). Larger improvements occurred in programs implementing short (1 week) ambulatory blocks. However, block scheduling may result in worse physician continuity (n = 4). Block scheduling had inconsistent effects on patient continuity (n = 4), satisfaction (n = 3), and health outcomes (n = 3). Discussion: Although block scheduling improves resident satisfaction, conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, and ambulatory training time, there may be important tradeoffs with worse care continuity.",
keywords = "ambulatory, block, scheduling, systematic review, X + Y",
author = "DeWaters, {Ami L.} and Hilda Loria and Mayo, {Helen Goetsch} and Alia Chisty and Nguyen, {Oanh K}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11606-019-04887-x",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Impact of Block Ambulatory Scheduling on Internal Medicine Residencies

T2 - a Systematic Review

AU - DeWaters, Ami L.

AU - Loria, Hilda

AU - Mayo, Helen Goetsch

AU - Chisty, Alia

AU - Nguyen, Oanh K

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: Over the past decade, nearly half of internal medicine residencies have implemented block clinic scheduling; however, the effects on residency-related outcomes are unknown. The authors systematically reviewed the impact of block versus traditional ambulatory scheduling on residency-related outcomes, including (1) resident satisfaction, (2) resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, (3) ambulatory training time, (4) continuity of care, (5) patient satisfaction, and (6) patient health outcomes. Method: The authors reviewed the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE InProcess, EBSCO CINAHL, EBSCO ERIC, and the Cochrane Library from inception through March 2017 and included studies of residency programs comparing block to traditional scheduling with at least one outcome of interest. Two authors independently extracted data on setting, participants, schedule design, and the outcomes of interest. Results: Of 8139 studies, 11 studies of fair to moderate methodologic quality were included in the final analysis. Overall, block scheduling was associated with marked improvements in resident satisfaction (n = 7 studies, effect size range − 0.3 to + 0.9), resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities (n = 5, effect size range + 0.3 to + 2.6), and available ambulatory training time (n = 5). Larger improvements occurred in programs implementing short (1 week) ambulatory blocks. However, block scheduling may result in worse physician continuity (n = 4). Block scheduling had inconsistent effects on patient continuity (n = 4), satisfaction (n = 3), and health outcomes (n = 3). Discussion: Although block scheduling improves resident satisfaction, conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, and ambulatory training time, there may be important tradeoffs with worse care continuity.

AB - Background: Over the past decade, nearly half of internal medicine residencies have implemented block clinic scheduling; however, the effects on residency-related outcomes are unknown. The authors systematically reviewed the impact of block versus traditional ambulatory scheduling on residency-related outcomes, including (1) resident satisfaction, (2) resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, (3) ambulatory training time, (4) continuity of care, (5) patient satisfaction, and (6) patient health outcomes. Method: The authors reviewed the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE InProcess, EBSCO CINAHL, EBSCO ERIC, and the Cochrane Library from inception through March 2017 and included studies of residency programs comparing block to traditional scheduling with at least one outcome of interest. Two authors independently extracted data on setting, participants, schedule design, and the outcomes of interest. Results: Of 8139 studies, 11 studies of fair to moderate methodologic quality were included in the final analysis. Overall, block scheduling was associated with marked improvements in resident satisfaction (n = 7 studies, effect size range − 0.3 to + 0.9), resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities (n = 5, effect size range + 0.3 to + 2.6), and available ambulatory training time (n = 5). Larger improvements occurred in programs implementing short (1 week) ambulatory blocks. However, block scheduling may result in worse physician continuity (n = 4). Block scheduling had inconsistent effects on patient continuity (n = 4), satisfaction (n = 3), and health outcomes (n = 3). Discussion: Although block scheduling improves resident satisfaction, conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, and ambulatory training time, there may be important tradeoffs with worse care continuity.

KW - ambulatory

KW - block

KW - scheduling

KW - systematic review

KW - X + Y

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064669368&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064669368&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11606-019-04887-x

DO - 10.1007/s11606-019-04887-x

M3 - Review article

C2 - 30993618

AN - SCOPUS:85064669368

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

ER -