Person:
Wittels, Kathleen

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Wittels

First Name

Kathleen

Name

Wittels, Kathleen

Filters

2015 - 20172

Settings

Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.13e13140-0ecd-4be9-9dc3-e8343dc64ca3

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Morbidity and Mortality Conference in Emergency Medicine Residencies and the Culture of Safety
    (Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, 2015) Aaronson, Emily; Wittels, Kathleen; Nadel, Eric; Schuur, Jeremiah
    Introduction: Morbidity and mortality conferences (M+M) are a traditional part of residency training and mandated by the Accreditation Counsel of Graduate Medical Education. This study’s objective was to determine the goals, structure, and the prevalence of practices that foster strong safety cultures in the M+Ms of U.S. emergency medicine (EM) residency programs. Methods: The authors conducted a national survey of U.S. EM residency program directors. The survey instrument evaluated five domains of M+M (Organization and Infrastructure; Case Finding; Case Selection; Presentation; and Follow up) based on the validated Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality Safety Culture survey. Results: There was an 80% (151/188) response rate. The primary objectives of M+M were discussing adverse outcomes (53/151, 35%), identifying systems errors (47/151, 31%) and identifying cognitive errors (26/151, 17%). Fifty-six percent (84/151) of institutions have anonymous case submission, with 10% (15/151) maintaining complete anonymity during the presentation and 21% (31/151) maintaining partial anonymity. Forty-seven percent (71/151) of programs report a formal process to follow up on systems issues identified at M+M. Forty-four percent (67/151) of programs report regular debriefing with residents who have had their cases presented. Conclusion: The structure and goals of M+Ms in EM residencies vary widely. Many programs lack features of M+M that promote a non-punitive response to error, such as anonymity. Other programs lack features that support strong safety cultures, such as following up on systems issues or reporting back to residents on improvements. Further research is warranted to determine if M+M structure is related to patient safety culture in residency programs.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Medical Student Documentation in the Electronic Medical Record: Patterns of Use and Barriers
    (Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, 2017) Wittels, Kathleen; Wallenstein, Joshua; Patwari, Rahul; Patel, Sundip
    Introduction: Electronic health records (EHR) have become ubiquitous in emergency departments. Medical students rotating on emergency medicine (EM) clerkships at these sites have constant exposure to EHRs as they learn essential skills. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), and the Alliance for Clinical Education (ACE) have determined that documentation of the patient encounter in the medical record is an essential skill that all medical students must learn. However, little is known about the current practices or perceived barriers to student documentation in EHRs on EM clerkships. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of EM clerkship directors at United States medical schools between March and May 2016. A 13-question IRB-approved electronic survey on student documentation was sent to all EM clerkship directors. Only one response from each institution was permitted. Results: We received survey responses from 100 institutions, yielding a response rate of 86%. Currently, 63% of EM clerkships allow medical students to document a patient encounter in the EHR. The most common reasons cited for not permitting students to document a patient encounter were hospital or medical school rule forbidding student documentation (80%), concern for medical liability (60%), and inability of student notes to support medical billing (53%). Almost 95% of respondents provided feedback on student documentation with supervising faculty being the most common group to deliver feedback (92%), followed by residents (64%). Conclusion: Close to two-thirds of medical students are allowed to document in the EHR on EM clerkships. While this number is robust, many organizations such as the AAMC and ACE have issued statements and guidelines that would look to increase this number even further to ensure that students are prepared for residency as well as their future careers. Almost all EM clerkships provided feedback on student documentation indicating the importance for students to learn this skill.