Rebecca Kate Miller-Kuhlmann

All Publications

• Accelerated launch of video visits in ambulatory neurology during COVID-19: Key lessons from the Stanford experience. Neurology Yang, L., Brown-Johnson, C. G., Miller-Kuhlmann, R., Kling, S. M., Saliba-Gustafsson, E. A., Shaw, J. G., Gold, C. A., Winget, M. 2020

  Abstract

  The COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly moved telemedicine from discretionary to necessary. Here we describe how the Stanford Neurology Department: 1) rapidly adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in over 1000 video visits within four weeks and 2) accelerated an existing quality improvement plan of a tiered roll out of video visits for ambulatory neurology to a full-scale roll out. Key issues we encountered and addressed were related to: equipment/software, provider engagement, workflow/triage, and training. Upon reflection, the key drivers of our success were provider engagement and a supportive physician champion. The physician champion played a critical role understanding stakeholder needs, including staff and physicians' needs, and creating workflows to coordinate both stakeholder groups. Prior to COVID-19, physician interest in telemedicine was mixed. However, in response to county and state stay-at-home orders related to COVID-19, physician engagement changed completely; all providers wanted to convert a majority of visits to video visits as quickly as possible. Rapid deployment of neurology video visits across all its subspecialties is feasible. Our experience and lessons learned can facilitate broader utilization, acceptance, and normalization of video visits for neurology patients in the present as well as the much anticipated post-pandemic era.

  View details for DOI 10.1212/WNL.0000000000010015

  View details for PubMedID 32611634

• Education Research: A novel resident-driven neurology quality improvement curriculum. Neurology Miller-Kuhlmann, R., Kraler, L., Bozinov, N., Frolov, A., Mlynash, M., Gold, C. A., Kvam, K. A. 2020; 94 (3): 137–42

  Abstract

  OBJECTIVE: To describe and assess the effectiveness of a neurology resident quality improvement curriculum focused on development of practical skills and project experience.METHODS: We designed and implemented a quality improvement curriculum composed of (1) a workshop series and (2) monthly resident-led Morbidity, Mortality, & Improvement conferences focused on case analysis and project development. Surveys were administered precurriculum and 18 months postcurriculum to assess the effect on self-assessed confidence with quality improvement skills, attitudes, and project participation. Scholarship in the form of posters, presentations, and manuscripts was tracked during the course of the study.RESULTS: Precurriculum, 83% of neurology residents felt that instruction in quality improvement was important, but most rated their confidence level with various skills as low. Following implementation of the curriculum, residents were significantly more confident in analyzing a patient case (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) (2.4, 1.9-3.1), proposing system changes (3.1, 2.3-3.9), writing a problem statement (9.9, 6.2-13.5), studying a process (3.1, 2.3-3.8), identifying resources (3.1, 2.3-3.8), identifying appropriate measures (2.5, 1.9-3.0), collaborating with other providers to make improvements (4.9, 3.5-6.4), and making changes in a system (3.1, 2.3-3.8). Project participation increased from the precurriculum baseline (7/18, 39%) to the postcurriculum period (17/22, 77%; p = 0.023). One hundred percent of residents surveyed rated the curriculum positively.CONCLUSIONS: Our multifaceted curriculum was associated with increased resident confidence with quality improvement skills and increased participation in improvement projects. With adequate faculty mentorship, this curriculum represents a novel template for preparing neurology residents for meeting the expectations of improvement in practice and offers scholarship opportunities.

  View details for DOI 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008752

  View details for PubMedID 31959682

• Rapid implementation of video visits in neurology during COVID-19: a mixed methods evaluation. Journal of medical Internet research Saliba-Gustafsson, E. A., Miller-Kuhlmann, R. n., Kling, S. M., Garvert, D. W., Brown-Johnson, C. G., Lestoquoy, A. S., Verano, M. R., Yang, L. n., Falco-Walter, J. n., Shaw, J. G., Asch, S. M., Gold, C. A., Winget, M. n. 2020

  Abstract

  Telemedicine has been used for decades; yet, despite its many advantages, its uptake and rigorous evaluation of feasibility across neurology's ambulatory subspecialties has been sparse. The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic however, prompted healthcare systems worldwide to reconsider traditional healthcare delivery. To safeguard healthcare workers and patients many healthcare systems quickly transitioned to telemedicine, including across neurology subspecialties, providing a new opportunity to evaluate this modality of care.To evaluate the accelerated implementation of video visits in ambulatory neurology during the COVID-19 pandemic, we used mixed methods to assess the adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and perceptions of potential sustainability.Video visits were launched rapidly in ambulatory neurology clinics of a large academic medical center. To assess adoption, we analyzed clinician-level scheduling data collected between March 22 and May 16, 2020. We assessed acceptability, appropriateness, and sustainability via a clinician survey (n=48) and semi-structured interviews with providers (n=30) completed between March and May 2020.Video visits were adopted rapidly; 65 (98%) clinicians integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 implementation weeks and 92% of all visits were conducted via video. Video visits were largely considered acceptable by clinicians, although various technological issues impacted satisfaction. Video visits were reported to be more convenient for patients, families, and/or caregivers than in-person visits; however, access to technology, the patient's technological capacity, and language difficulties were considered barriers. Many clinicians expressed optimism about future utilization of video visits in neurology. They believed that video visits promote continuity of care and can be incorporated into their practice long-term, although several insisted that they can never replace the in-person examination.Video visits are an important addition to clinical care in ambulatory neurology and are anticipated to remain a permanent supplement to in-person visits, promoting patient care continuity, and flexibility for patients and clinicians alike.

  View details for DOI 10.2196/24328

  View details for PubMedID 33245699

• Making Well Neurologists: A Multifaceted Program for Neurology Trainee and Faculty Wellbeing Miller-Kuhlmann, R., Murray, N., Dujari, S., Karamian, A., Hamidi, M., Su, E., Bozinov, N., McGranahan, T. LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. 2019

  View details for Web of Science ID 000475965902083

• A Quality Improvement Curriculum for Neurology Residents Miller-Kuhlmann, R., Kraler, L., Bozinov, N., Frolov, A., Mlynash, M., Gold, C., Kvam, K. LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. 2018

  View details for Web of Science ID 000453090805218

• Essential steps in developing best practices to assess reflective skill: A comparison of two rubrics MEDICAL TEACHER Miller-Kuhlmann, R., O'Sullivan, P. S., Aronson, L. 2016; 38 (1): 75-81

  Abstract

  Medical education lacks best practices for evaluating reflective writing skill. Reflection assessment rubrics include the holistic, reflection theory-based Reflection-on-Action and the analytic REFLECT developed from both reflection and narrative-medicine literatures. To help educators move toward best practices, we evaluated these rubrics to determine (1) rater requirements; (2) score comparability; and (3) response to an intervention.One-hundred and forty-nine third-year medical students wrote reflections in response to identical prompts. Trained raters used each rubric to score 56 reflections, half written with structured guidelines and half without. We used Pearson's correlation coefficients to associate overall rubric levels and independent t-tests to compare structured and unstructured reflections.Reflection-on-Action training required for two hours; two raters attained an interrater-reliability = 0.91. REFLECT training required six hours; three raters achieved an interrater-reliability = 0.84. Overall rubric correlation was 0.53. Students given structured guidelines scored significantly higher (p < 0.05) on both rubrics.Reflection-on-Action and REFLECT offer unique educational benefits and training challenges. Reflection-on-Action may be preferred for measuring overall quality of reflection given its ease of use. Training on REFLECT takes longer but it yields detailed data on multiple dimensions of reflection that faculty can reference when providing feedback.

  View details for DOI 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1034662

  View details for PubMedID 25923234

• The regulatory easy street: Self-regulation below the self-control threshold does not consume regulatory resources PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Vandellen, M. R., Hoyle, R. H., Miller, R. 2012; 52 (8): 898-902

  Abstract

  We present and test a theory in which self-control is distinguished from broader acts of self-regulation when it is both effortful and conscious. In two studies, we examined whether acts of behavioral management that do not require effort are exempt from resource depletion. In Study 1, we found that a self-regulation task only reduced subsequent self-control for participants who had previously indicated that completing the task would require effort. In Study 2, we found that participants who completed a self-regulation task for two minutes did not evidence the subsequent impairment in self-control evident for participants who had completed the task for four or more minutes. Our results support the notion that self-regulation without effort falls below the self-control threshold and has different downstream consequences than self-control.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.028

  View details for Web of Science ID 000303084800007

  View details for PubMedID 22711963

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC3375861