Project description:BackgroundMedical training can be a challenging time for residents both professionally and personally. Resident support programs must be able to address a range of potential experiences, be accessible and easy to navigate, and consider the unique context of residency. Rigorous evaluation of resident support programs is needed to determine whether these programs are meeting these goals.MethodsThe Directors of Resident Support (DRS) program, launched in January 2021 at the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary, is a near-peer support model consisting of three faculty physicians, trained in peer support, who receive contacts from residents needing support for any issue. DRS physicians provide empathetic listening, referral to existing resources, and peer support for residents. A multisource evaluation of the DRS program, including field notes, data collection forms, and surveys, was guided by the Donabedian framework.ResultsThere were 62 total contacts in the 2-year evaluation period which required a median 2 h to address (range 5 min to more than 40 h). The most common topic for contact was to discuss feedback or evaluation (n = 10, 24.4%) and the most common response was listening and support (n = 29, 70.7%). Residents also contacted DRS to discuss experiences of racism, physical assault, sexual harassment, and mental health crises. Residents (n = 13) rated a median score of 74 out of possible 100 for usefulness (interquartile range [IQR] 1-100, with higher scores suggesting greater usefulness). Free text survey responses suggested that residents felt validated by contact with the program though some residents felt that additional follow-up would have been helpful.ConclusionThe DRS program has been well-utilized by residents for a variety of issues. Postgraduate Medical Education offices seeking to create resident support programs may anticipate that about 3% of residents may use a similar program per year and that the typical interaction would last 2 h, with a wide range. Feedback suggested that similar programs should have a formal process for follow-up with residents to ensure their concern was addressed and that resident supporters should have diverse lived experiences.

Project description:IntroductionIn 2011, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented new Common Program Requirements to regulate duty hours of resident physicians, with three goals: improved patient safety, quality of resident education and quality of life for trainees. We sought to assess Internal Medicine program director (IMPD) perceptions of the 2011 Common Program Requirements in July 2012, one year following implementation of the new standards.MethodsA cross-sectional study of all IMPDs at ACGME-accredited programs in the United States (N?=?381) was performed using a 32-question, self-administered survey. Contact information was identified for 323 IMPDs. Three individualized emails were sent to each director over a 6-week period, requesting participation in the survey. Outcomes measured included approval of duty hours regulations, as well as perceptions of changes in graduate medical education and patient care resulting from the revised ACGME standards.ResultsA total of 237 surveys were returned (73% response rate). More than half of the IMPDs (52%) reported "overall" approval of the 2011 duty hour regulations, with greater than 70% approval of all individual regulations except senior resident daily duty periods (49% approval) and 16-hour intern shifts (17% approval). Although a majority feel resident quality of life has improved (55%), most IMPDs believe that resident education (60%) is worse. A minority report that quality (8%) or safety (11%) of patient care has improved.ConclusionOne year after implementation of new ACGME duty hour requirements, IMPDs report overall approval of the standards, but strong disapproval of 16-hour shift limits for interns. Few program directors perceive that the duty hour restrictions have resulted in better care for patients or education of residents. Although resident quality of life seems improved, most IMPDs report that their own workload has increased. Based on these results, the intended benefits of duty hour regulations may not yet have been realized.

Project description:Rationale & Objective Adoption of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) into nephrology practice has been relatively slow. We surveyed US nephrology program directors, their fellows, and graduates from a single training program regarding current/planned POCUS training, clinical use, and barriers to training and use. Study Design Anonymous, online survey. Setting & Participants All US nephrology program directors (n=151), their fellows (academic year 2021-2022), and 89/90 graduates (1980-2021) of the Walter Reed Nephrology Program. Analytical Approach Descriptive. Results 46% (69/151) of program directors and 33% (118/361) of their fellows responded. Response rate was 62% (55/89) for Walter Reed graduates. 51% of program directors offered POCUS training, most commonly bedside training in non-POCUS oriented rotations (71%), didactic lectures (68%), and simulation (43%). 46% of fellows reported receiving POCUS training, but of these, many reported not being sufficiently trained/not confident in kidney (56%), bladder (50%), and inferior vena cava assessment (46%). Common barriers to training reported by program directors were not enough trained faculty (78%), themselves not being sufficiently trained (55%), and equipment expense (51%). 64% of program directors and 55% of fellows reported <10% of faculty were able to perform POCUS. 64% of fellows reported having too little POCUS training. 72% of program directors and 77% of graduates felt POCUS should be incorporated into the fellowship curriculum. 59% of fellows and 61% of graduates desired hands-on POCUS training rather than didactic lectures or simulation. Limitations Loss of respondents as program directors and fellows progressed through the survey. Conclusions Nephrology program directors, fellows, and graduates surveyed want POCUS training incorporated into the fellowship curriculum. No group felt sufficiently trained to confidently perform POCUS, and the major barrier to training was lack of sufficiently trained faculty. This highlights the need to “train the trainers” before POCUS can be fully integrated into fellowship training and regularly used in nephrology practice. Graphical abstract

Dataset Information

The Resident Readiness Survey: A National Process for Program Directors to Provide Standardized Feedback to Medical Schools About Their Graduates

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets