Project description:BackgroundTo increase diversity and inclusion in graduate medical education, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) issued a revision to their Common Program Requirements during the 2019-2020 academic year mandating that all residency programs must have policies and practices to achieve appropriate diversity among trainees and faculty.ObjectiveTo explore the perspectives of internal medicine program directors (PDs) and associate program directors (APDs) on the ACGME diversity standard.DesignQualitative study of internal medicine residency program leadership from academic and community programs across the USA.ParticipantsCurrent PDs (n = 12) and APDs (n = 8) of accredited US internal medicine residency programs.ApproachWe conducted semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews. Data was analyzed using the constant comparative method to extract recurrent themes.Key resultsThree main themes, described by participants, were identified: (1) internal medicine PDs and APDs had limited knowledge of the new Common Program Requirement relating to diversity; (2) program leaders expressed concern that the diversity standard reaches beyond the PDs' scope of influence and lack of institutional commitment to the successful implementation of diversity standards; (3) participants described narrow view of diversity and inclusion efforts focusing on recruitment strategies during the interview season.ConclusionsOur findings of lack of familiarity with the new diversity standards, and limited institutional investment in diversity and inclusion efforts raise a concern about successful implementation across GME programs. Nevertheless, our finding suggests that structured implementation in the form of education, guideposts, and financial allocation can alleviate some of the concerns of program leadership in meeting the new ACGME diversity standard in a meaningful way.
Project description:The German graduate medical education system is going through an important phase of changes. Besides the ongoing reform of the national guidelines for graduate medical education (Musterweiterbildungsordnung), other factors like societal and demographic changes, health and research policy reforms also play a central role for the future and competitiveness of graduate medical education. With this position paper, the committee on graduate medical education of the Society for Medical Education (GMA) would like to point out some central questions for this process and support the current discourse. As an interprofessional and interdisciplinary scientific society, the GMA has the resources to contribute in a meaningful way to an evidence-based and future-oriented graduate medical education strategy. In this position paper, we use four key questions with regards to educational goals, quality assurance, teaching competence and policy requirements to address the core issues for the future of graduate medical education in Germany. The GMA sees its task in contributing to the necessary reform processes as the only German speaking scientific society in the field of medical education.
Project description:Surgical pathology residency training in the United States lags behind other specialties in quality control and graduated responsibility to train independent pathologists capable of seamlessly entering practice after training. We observed that our traditional 3-day-cycle surgical pathology cycle (day 1-grossing; day 2 -biopsies/frozens/preview; day 3 - sign-out) consistently and negatively impacted resident education by reducing preview time, case follow-up, immunohistochemical stain (IHC) interpretation, and molecular study integration. We aimed to create a modern surgical pathology rotation that improved performance and outcomes. We innovated our rotation to enhance resident education and ensure graduated responsibility. A novel 6-day cycle was created composed of 2 grossing days, 1 frozens/biopsies/preview days, 2 dedicated sign-out days, and 1 frozens/biopsies/case completion day. Residents completed surveys before implementing the new rotation and 6 months after implementation to track self-assessment of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestone performance and internal quality control metrics. Clinical Competency Committee (CCC) annual evaluations were assessed in paired PGY levels pre- and post-intervention. After implementation, there was a statistically significant improvement in self-assessment of levels 4 and 5 of ACGME milestones and improved satisfaction of quality metrics, including time for previewing, reviewing IHC, graduated responsibility, and perceived readiness for independent practice. CCC evaluations showed overall maintained performance levels, with trends towards improvements in junior resident classes. Our 6-day cycle adequately fulfills the current demands of our sizeable academic center's surgical pathology training and can be a model for pathology residencies looking to modernize their surgical pathology rotations and resident education.
Project description:A dissertation is a practical exercise that educates students about basics of research methodology, promotes scientific writing and encourages critical thinking. The National Medical Commission (India) regulations make assessment of a dissertation by a minimum of three examiners mandatory. The candidate can appear for the final examination only after acceptance of the dissertation. An important role in a dissertation is that of the guide who has to guide his protégés through the process. This manuscript aims to assist students and guides on the basics of conduct of a dissertation and writing the dissertation. For students who will ultimately become researchers, a dissertation serves as an early exercise. Even for people who may never do research after their degree, a dissertation will help them discern the merits of new treatment options available in literature for the benefit of their patients.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Cultural competency is an important skill that prepares physicians to care for patients from diverse backgrounds. OBJECTIVE: We reviewed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) program requirements and relevant documents from the ACGME website to evaluate competency requirements across specialties. METHODS: The program requirements for each specialty and its subspecialties were reviewed from December 2011 through February 2012. The review focused on the 3 competency domains relevant to culturally competent care: professionalism, interpersonal and communication skills, and patient care. Specialty and subspecialty requirements were assigned a score between 0 and 3 (from least specific to most specific). Given the lack of a standardized cultural competence rating system, the scoring was based on explicit mention of specific keywords. RESULTS: A majority of program requirements fell into the low- or no-specificity score (1 or 0). This included 21 core specialties (leading to primary board certification) program requirements (78%) and 101 subspecialty program requirements (79%). For all specialties, cultural competency elements did not gravitate toward any particular competency domain. Four of 5 primary care program requirements (pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, family medicine, and psychiatry) acquired the high-specificity score of 3, in comparison to only 1 of 22 specialty care program requirements (physical medicine and rehabilitation). CONCLUSIONS: The degree of specificity, as judged by use of keywords in 3 competency domains, in ACGME requirements regarding cultural competency is highly variable across specialties and subspecialties. Greater specificity in requirements is expected to benefit the acquisition of cultural competency in residents, but this has not been empirically tested.
Project description:BackgroundBreast self-examination (BSE) was previously recommended to help early-stage breast cancer detection to improve prognosis. However, BSE is not recommended in the United States anymore due to the findings that it fails to significantly decrease mortality while increasing biopsy cases, causing unnecessary harm. Nonetheless, international researchers have continued to investigate the benefits of BSE in medically underserved regions. These studies raise the possibility that BSE could be beneficial in rural America, where people face higher mortality from chronic diseases compared to the general population.ObjectivesDetermine if BSE has benefits for medically underserved populations to inform a potential reevaluation of breast cancer screening recommendations.DesignSystematic review.Data sources and methodsA systematic review was conducted using a set of terms to identify articles on breast cancer survival and BSE in rural and/or underserved populations within the past 10 years. The search yielded over 200 articles across 3 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and SCOPUS), and they were further screened to include studies that show rural populations performing BSE, effects of BSE in breast cancer diagnosis and/or mortality of breast cancer patients, factors contributing to the efficacy of BSE, factors that affect women's willingness to perform BSE, and effects of BSE on breast cancer awareness/behaviors to seek further screening.ResultsThe final synthesis from 12 articles suggests that BSE is associated with early breast cancer detection (4/12), increased accessibility to breast cancer screening (2/12), and positively influence women to seek further breast cancer screening in rural populations (3/12). It also identifies a potential need for improved education on breast cancer and screening, including BSE practices, to promote early breast cancer detection (3/12).ConclusionThe reevaluation of the current recommendations to determine if exceptions should be made to specific populations would be helpful in addressing late detection and poor prognosis in medically underserved populations.
Project description:BackgroundDespite the importance of pain management across specialties and the effect of poor management on patients, many physicians are uncomfortable managing pain. This may be related, in part, to deficits in graduate medical education (GME).ObjectiveWe sought to evaluate the methodological rigor of and summarize findings from literature on GME interventions targeting acute and chronic non-cancer pain management.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) to identify studies published before March 2019 that had a focus on non-cancer pain management, majority of GME learners, defined educational intervention, and reported outcome. Quality of design was assessed with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education (NOS-E). One author summarized educational foci and methods.ResultsThe original search yielded 6149 studies; 26 met inclusion criteria. Mean MERSQI score was 11.6 (SD 2.29) of a maximum 18; mean NOS-E score was 2.60 (SD 1.22) out of 6. Most studies employed a single group, pretest-posttest design (n=16, 64%). Outcomes varied: 6 (24%) evaluated reactions (Kirkpatrick level 1), 12 (48%) evaluated learner knowledge (level 2), 5 (20%) evaluated behavior (level 3), and 2 (8%) evaluated patient outcomes (level 4). Interventions commonly focused on chronic pain (n=18, 69%) and employed traditional lectures (n=16, 62%) and case-based learning (n=14, 54%).ConclusionsPain management education research in GME largely evaluated chronic pain management interventions by assessing learner reactions or knowledge at single sites.
Project description:BackgroundLack of access to available cancer clinical trials has been cited as a key factor limiting trial accrual, particularly among medically underserved populations. We examined the trends and factors in clinical trial availability within a major U.S. safety-net hospital system.Materials and methodsWe identified cancer clinical trials activated at the Harold C. Simmons Cancer from 1991 to 2014 and recorded the characteristics of the trials that were and were not activated at the Parkland Health and Hospital System satellite site. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression to determine the association between trial characteristics and nonactivation status, and chi-square analysis to determine the association between the trial characteristics and the reasons for nonactivation.ResultsA total of 773 trials were identified, of which 152 (20%) were not activated at Parkland. In multivariable analysis, nonactivation at Parkland was associated with trial year, sponsor, and phase. Compared with the 1991-2006 period, clinical trials in the 2007-2014 period were almost eightfold more likely not to be activated at Parkland. The most common reasons for nonactivation at Parkland were an inability to perform the study procedures (27%) and the startup costs (15%).ConclusionOver time, in this single-center setting, a decreasing proportion of cancer clinical trials were available to underserved populations. Trial complexity and costs appeared to account for much of this trend. Efforts to overcome these barriers will be key to equitable access to clinical trials, efficient accrual, and the generalizability of the results.Implications for practiceDespite numerous calls to increase and diversify cancer clinical trial accrual, the present study found that cancer clinical trial activation rates in a safety-net setting for medically underserved populations have decreased substantially in recent years. The principal reasons for study nonactivation were expenses and an inability to perform the study-related procedures, reflecting the increasing costs and complexity of cancer clinical trials. Future efforts need to focus on strategies to mitigate the increasing disparity in access to clinical research and cutting-edge therapies, which also threatens to hinder study accrual, completion rates, and generalizability.