Hidaka, Brandon H.

Background: Arsenic is a well-known toxin which may contaminate household water. It is harmful when ingested over prolonged periods of time. As a result, public health experts recommend that water should be screened and treated to prevent arsenic ingestion. In the United States, the responsibility of testing and treatment of private wells falls on homeowners. Despite recommendations for routine screening, this is rarely done. Objectives: To assess the prevalence of well water use in a Midwestern patient population, how patients and clinicians perceive the risks of arsenic in well water, and whether additional resources on well water testing are desired. These findings will be used to influence tools for clinicians regarding symptom and examination findings of chronic arsenic exposure and potentiate the distribution of informational resources on well water testing. Methods: Surveys were sent via email to all actively practicing primary care clinicians at the Mayo Clinic in the United States Midwest, and all active adult patients at the Mayo Clinic in the same region. Our team analyzed survey data to determine whether both patients and clinicians are aware of the health effects of chronic arsenic toxicity from well water, the need for routine well water testing and whether each group wants more information on the associated risks. Results: Both patients and primary care clinicians worry about arsenic exposure. Patients with well water are concerned about their water safety yet feel uninformed about testing options. Clinicians do not know how prevalent well water use is among their patients, feel uninformed about the chronic risks of arsenic exposure and the physical examination associated with it. Both groups unanimously want more information on testing options. Conclusions: Our findings show a significant reliance on well water use in the American Midwest, and unanimous support for the need for further well water testing information and resources for patients and their clinicians.

Background and Objectives: Preceptors in family medicine residencies need feedback to improve. When we found no validated, behavior-based tool to assess the outpatient precepting of family medicine residents, we sought to fill this gap by developing and initially validating the Mayo Outpatient Precepting Evaluation Tool (MOPET). Methods: To develop the MOPET, we applied the Stanford Faculty Development Program (SFDP) theoretical framework for education, more recent work on peer review of medical teaching, and expert review of items. The residency behavioral scientist and a volunteer physician independently completed the MOPET while co-observing a precepting physician during continuity clinic sessions (N=20). We assessed the tool’s validity via interrater reliability and cross-validation with the SFDP-26. Results: The tool demonstrated high interrater reliability for the following effective teaching behaviors: (a) allowing the resident to present without interrupting, (b) encouraging the formulation of a goal, (c) checking in on the resident’s goal, (d) using multimodal teaching aids, (e) asking to discuss the differential diagnosis, (f) asking to discuss alternative management, (g) encouraging the resident to pursue literature and/or other resources, and (h) reinforcing self-directed learning. The MOPET measures strongly correlated with most items from the SFDP-26, indicating good cross-validity. Conclusions: The MOPET is a theoretically sound, behavior-based, reliable, and initially validated tool for peer review of outpatient family medicine resident teaching. This tool can support faculty development in outpatient clinical learning environments.

Background and Objectives: Primary care physicians (PCPS) are increasingly responsible for managing mental health, which can involve assessment and management of a psychiatric crisis. Psychiatric crises can include acute suicidal or homicidal ideation and capacity-impairing psychosis. Evidence suggests PCPs do not consistently assess or manage psychiatric crises and it is unclear how to train PCPs to address these potentially lethal scenarios. The main objective was to increase PCP resident confidence in assessing and managing a range of psychiatric crises. Methods: In a family medicine residency program that trains PCPs, we developed a three, 1-h didactic series and point-of-care reference documents. The curriculum focused on screening, outpatient management, inpatient criteria, logistics of voluntary and involuntary admission, and legal considerations. Resident confidence was measured by questionnaire before and 3 months after curriculum completion. Results: Prior to training, residents did not feel confident in assessing and managing psychiatric crises, except a slight majority (62%) in screening for suicidal and homicidal ideation. Resident confidence significantly increased for every aspect of assessing and managing psychiatric crises after the training (all P-values < .05), with the largest improvements for further assessing hallucinations, delusions, and suicidal and homicidal ideation. Conclusions: As PCPs increasingly manage mental illness, they will encounter a range of psychiatric crises in clinic. This study demonstrates that a brief training intervention and point-of-care resources can significantly increase PCP confidence to assess and manage these urgent, dangerous scenarios.

Abstract An evolutionary perspective provides a unifying explanation for the modifiable risk factors and lifestyle-based interventions for the leading causes of morbidity and mortality globally. Non-communicable diseases develop from an evolutionary mismatch between the prior environment and modern patterns of behavior; however, it is unclear whether an evolutionary mismatch narrative could promote positive behavior change in patients. We hypothesize that educating patients about evolutionary mismatch could augment efforts to improve healthful behavior. Specifically, explaining the ‘why’ behind what is being recommended could promote health literacy and adherence. Furthermore, we offer suggestions of how clinicians could educate patients about evolutionary mismatch for key-lifestyle factors, diet and physical activity, as well as several specific modern diseases. We also consider how to sidestep patients’ skepticism of evolutionary theory. Here, we lay the groundwork for research on how educating patients with an evolutionary mismatch narrative could impact health behaviors and improve outcomes.