Management of the Electronic Health Record Inbox: Results From a National Survey of Internal Medicine Program Directors
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Vaa Stelling B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10686644 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundBullying of medical trainees is believed to occur more frequently in medical education than once thought.ObjectiveWe conducted a survey to understand internal medicine program director (PD) perspectives and awareness about bullying in their residency programs.MethodsThe 2015 Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine (APDIM) annual survey was e-mailed to 368 of 396 PDs with APDIM membership, representing 93% of internal medicine residency programs. Questions about bullying were embedded within the survey. Bivariate analyses were performed on PD and program characteristics.ResultsOf a total of 368 PD APDIM members, 227 PDs (62%) responded to the survey. Less than one-third of respondents (71 of 227, 31%) reported being aware of bullying in their residency programs during the previous year. There were no significant differences in program or PD characteristics between respondents who reported bullying in their programs and those who did not (gender, tenure as PD, geographic location, or specialty, all P > .05). Those who acknowledged bullying in their program were more likely to agree it was a problem in graduate medical education (P < .0001), and it had a significant negative impact on the learning environment (P < .0001). The majority of reported events entailed verbal disparagements, directed toward interns and women, and involved attending physicians, other residents, and nurses.ConclusionsThis national survey of internal medicine PDs reveals that a minority of PDs acknowledged recent bullying in their training programs, and reportedly saw it as a problem in the learning environment.
| S-EPMC5901802 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4175662 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecent reports, including the Institute of Medicine's Improving Diagnosis in Health Care, highlight the pervasiveness and underappreciated harm of diagnostic error, and recommend enhancing health care professional education in diagnostic reasoning. However, little is known about clinical reasoning curricula at US medical schools.ObjectiveTo describe clinical reasoning curricula at US medical schools and to determine the attitudes of internal medicine clerkship directors toward teaching of clinical reasoning.DesignCross-sectional multicenter study.ParticipantsUS institutional members of the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM).Main measuresExamined responses to a survey that was emailed in May 2015 to CDIM institutional representatives, who reported on their medical school's clinical reasoning curriculum.Key resultsThe response rate was 74% (91/123). Most respondents reported that a structured curriculum in clinical reasoning should be taught in all phases of medical education, including the preclinical years (64/85; 75%), clinical clerkships (76/87; 87%), and the fourth year (75/88; 85%), and that more curricular time should be devoted to the topic. Respondents indicated that most students enter the clerkship with only poor (25/85; 29%) to fair (47/85; 55%) knowledge of key clinical reasoning concepts. Most institutions (52/91; 57%) surveyed lacked sessions dedicated to these topics. Lack of curricular time (59/67, 88%) and faculty expertise in teaching these concepts (53/76, 69%) were identified as barriers.ConclusionsInternal medicine clerkship directors believe that clinical reasoning should be taught throughout the 4 years of medical school, with the greatest emphasis in the clinical years. However, only a minority reported having teaching sessions devoted to clinical reasoning, citing a lack of curricular time and faculty expertise as the largest barriers. Our findings suggest that additional institutional and national resources should be dedicated to developing clinical reasoning curricula to improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce diagnostic error.
| S-EPMC5653563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince the 2011 Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) work hour rules for residents were implemented, 24-30 h call for interns has been replaced by shift work, including night-float. The impact of these changes on undergraduate medical education experiences in internal medicine has not been described.ObjectiveWe aimed to determine the current status of medical students' overnight experiences in Internal Medicine clerkships and sub-internships, and to assess internal medicine educators' perceptions of the importance of overnight work during internal medicine rotations.Design and participantsIn May 2014, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) conducted its annual survey. Twenty-eight questions about student participation in overnight work and perceptions of the importance of overnight work (rated on 1-5 Likert scale, 1 = very unimportant and 5 = ery important) were included. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses. Free text results were analyzed qualitatively.Key resultsThe response rate was 78 %. A minority of respondents reported students having any overnight experience during the clerkship (38.7 %) or the sub-internship (40.7 %). Only 5 % of respondents reported having students assigned to night-float rotations outside of clerkships or sub-internships. Respondents agreed that overnight experiences were more important during the sub-internship than the clerkship, 4.0 ± 1.1 vs. 3.2 ± 1.2, p < 0.001. Admitting new patients, following their course and responding to emergencies were rated as important overnight tasks for both clerkship and sub-internship students.ConclusionsOvernight experiences offer students additional educational opportunities. Clerkship directors felt that the overnight experience for the sub-intern in particular was an important chance to practice providing emergency cross coverage and other intern roles. In the era of ACGME duty hours, there is a need to further examine whether there is a role for increased overnight hospital experiences for medical students.
| S-EPMC4539329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHazard pay for resident physicians has been controversial in the COVID-19 pandemic. Program director (PD) beliefs about hazard pay and the extent of provision to internal medicine (IM) residents are unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate hazard pay provision to residents early in the COVID-19 pandemic and pandemic and residency program characteristics associated with hazard pay.Design, setting, and participantsA nationally representative survey was conducted of 429 US/US territory-based IM PDs from August to December 2020.Main outcome and measuresHazard pay provision and PD beliefs about hazard pay were tested for association with factors related to the pandemic surge and program characteristics.ResultsResponse rate was 61.5% (264/429); 19.5% of PDs reported hazard pay provision. PD belief about hazard pay was equivocal: 33.2% agreed, 43.1% disagreed, and 23.7% were uncertain. Hazard pay occurred more commonly in the Middle-Atlantic Census Division (including New York City) and with earlier surges and greater resident participation in COVID-19 patient care. Hazard pay occurred more commonly where PDs supported hazard pay (74.5% vs. 22.1%, p = .018). Reasons most frequently given in support of hazard pay were essential worker status, equity, and schedule disruption. Those opposed cited professional obligation and equity.ConclusionHazard pay for IM residents early in the COVID-19 pandemic was nominal but more commonly associated with heavily impacted institutions. Although PD beliefs were mixed, positive belief was associated with provision. The unique role of residents as both essential workers and trainees might explain our varied results. Further investigation may inform future policy, especially in times of crisis.
| S-EPMC9088350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCase-based Morning Report (MR) has long been the predominant educational conference in Internal Medicine (IM) residency programs. The last comprehensive survey of IM MR was in 1986. Much has changed in the healthcare landscape since 1986 that may impact MR.ObjectiveWe sought to determine the current state of MR across all US IM programs.DesignIn 2018, US IM program directors (PDs) were surveyed about the dynamics of MR at their institutions, perceived pressures, and realized changes.Key resultsThe response rate was 70.2% (275/392). MR remains highly prevalent (97.5% of programs), although held less frequently (mean 3.9 days/week, SD 1.2), for less time (mean 49.4 min, SD 12.3), and often later in the day compared to 1986. MR attendees have changed, with more diversity of learners but less presence of educational leaders. PD presence at MR is associated with increased resident attendance (high attendance: 78% vs 61%, p=0.0062) and punctuality (strongly agree/agree: 59% vs 43%, p=0.0161). The most cited goal for MR is utilizing cases to practice clinical reasoning. Nearly 40% of PDs feel pressure to move or cancel MR; of those, 61.2% have done so, most commonly changing the timing (48.5%), reducing the length (18.4%), and reducing the number of sessions per week (11.7%). Compared to community-based and to community-based, university-affiliated programs, university-based programs have 2.9 times greater odds (95% CI: 1.3, 6.9; p = 0.0081) and 2.5 times greater odds (95% CI 1.5, 4.4; p =0.0007), respectively, of holding MR after 9 AM, and 1.8 times greater odds (95% CI: 0.8, 4.2; p = 0.1367) and 2.0 times greater odds (95% CI: 1.2, 3.5; p = 0.0117), respectively, of reporting pressure to cancel or move MR compared to their counterparts.ConclusionsWhile MR ubiquity reflects its continued perceived value, PDs have modified MR to accommodate changes in the healthcare environment. This includes reduced frequency, shorter length, and moving conferences later in the day. Additional studies are needed to understand how these changes impact learning.
| S-EPMC8477724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe care of patients with HIV is increasingly focused on outpatient chronic disease management. It is not known to what extent internal medicine residents in the US are currently being trained in or encouraged to provide primary care for this population of patients.ObjectiveTo survey internal medicine residency program directors about their attitudes regarding training in outpatient HIV care and current program practices.DesignProgram directors were surveyed first by email. Non-responding programs were mailed up to two copies of the survey.SubjectsAll internal medicine residency program directors in the US.Main measuresProgram director attitudes and residency descriptions.Key resultsOf the 372 program directors surveyed, 230 responded (61.8 %). Forty-two percent of program directors agreed that it is important to train residents to be primary care providers for patients with HIV. Teaching outpatient-based HIV curricula was a priority for 45.1%, and 56.5% reported that exposing residents to outpatient HIV clinical care was a high priority. Only 46.5% of programs offer a dedicated rotation in outpatient HIV care, and 50.5% of programs have curricula in place to teach about outpatient HIV care. Only 18.8% of program directors believed their graduates had the skills to be primary providers for patients with HIV, and 70.6% reported that residents interested in providing care for patients with HIV pursued ID fellowships. The strongest reasons cited for limited HIV training during residency were beliefs that patients with HIV prefer to be seen and receive better care in ID clinics compared to general medicine clinics.ConclusionsWith a looming HIV workforce shortage, we believe that internal medicine programs should create educational experiences that will provide their residents with the skills and knowledge necessary to meet the healthcare needs of this population.
| S-EPMC2917660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTraining future clinicians in safe opioid prescribing (SOP) and treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is critical to address the opioid epidemic. The Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education requires all programs to provide instruction and experience in pain management and will mandate addiction medicine clinical experiences for internal medicine trainees.ObjectiveAssess residents' training in SOP and treatment of OUD and identify training barriers.DesignCross-sectional nationally representative survey was emailed in 2019.ParticipantsFour hundred twenty-two Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine members in US internal medicine residency programs.Main measuresProgram opportunities and challenges to developing or implementing training in SOP, treatment of OUD, and buprenorphine waiver training, and perceived curricular effectiveness.Key resultsThe response rate was 69.4% (293/422). Most programs required didactics in SOP (94.2%) and treatment of OUD (71.7%). Few programs required clinical experiences including addiction medicine clinics (28/240, 11.7%), inpatient consult services (11/240, 4.6%), or offsite treatment rotations (8/240, 3.3%). Lack of trained faculty limited developing or implementing curricula (61.5%). Few respondents reported that their program was "very effective" in teaching SOP (80/285, 28.1%) or treatment of OUD (43/282, 15.3%). Some programs offered buprenorphine waiver training to residents (83/286, 29.0%) and faculty (94/286, 32.9%) with few mandating training (11.7% (28/240) and 5.4% (13/240) respectively). Only 60 of 19,466 (0.3%) residents completed buprenorphine waiver training. Primary care programs/tracks were more likely to offer waiver training to residents (odds ratio [OR], 3.07; 95% CI, 1.68-5.60; P < 0.001) and faculty (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-3.22; P = 0.05).ConclusionsIn this nationally representative survey, few internal medicine residency programs provided clinical training in SOP and treatment of OUD, and training was not viewed as very effective. Lack of effective training may have adverse implications for patients, clinicians, and society.
| S-EPMC8562932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince 2013, the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) has asked all programs to declare themselves to be "all in" or "all out" for the NRMP. Before this rule was enacted, program directors who were surveyed expressed concerns about what they anticipated with the change, including resources for increased applications and potential delays with residency start times.ObjectiveThis study investigated the positive and negative effects of the rule change on recruiting seen from the perspective of internal medicine (IM) program directors.MethodsIn this mixed model cross-sectional survey, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited IM program directors were surveyed regarding their impressions of the impact of the policy change. Data were aggregated using constant comparative analysis.ResultsA total of 127 of 396 (32%) IM program directors responded, and 122 of 127 (96%) identified their program as "all in." A total of 110 respondents expressed impressions of the rule change, with 48% (53 of 111) reporting positive responses, 28% (31 of 111) neutral responses, and 24% (27 of 111) negative responses. Programs with higher percentages of visa-holding residents had lower positive responses (37% [22 of 60] versus 61% [31 of 51]). Resident quality was felt to be unchanged or improved by most program directors (93%, 103 of 111), yet 24% (27 of 112) reported increases in delayed start times for visa-holding residents. Qualitative analysis identified increased fairness, at the expense of an increase in program resources as a result of the change.ConclusionsA slight majority of residency programs reported a neutral or negative impression of the rule change. Since the rule change, program directors noted increased application volume and delayed residency starts for visa-holding residents.
| S-EPMC5398148 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrior to the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine (TM) experiences in undergraduate medical education were uncommon. When students' clinical experiences were interrupted due to the pandemic, TM education provided opportunities for students to participate in clinical care while adhering to social distancing guidelines.ObjectiveTo assess the prevalence of TM experiences in the internal medicine (IM) core clerkship experience prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, during interruption in clinical clerkships, and following the return to in-person activities at US medical schools.DesignThe Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) survey is a national, annually recurring thematic survey of IM core clerkship directors. The 2020 survey focused on effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including a section about TM. The survey was fielded online from August through October 2020.ParticipantsA total of 137 core clinical medicine clerkship directors at Liaison Committee on Medical Education fully accredited US/US territory-based medical schools.Main measuresA 10-item thematic survey section assessing student participation in TM and assessment of TM-related competencies.Key resultsThe response rate was 73.7% (101/137 medical schools). No respondents reported TM curricular experiences prior to the pandemic. During clinical interruption, 39.3% of respondents reported TM experiences in the IM clerkship, whereas 24.7% reported such experiences occurring at the time they completed the survey. A higher percentage of clerkships with an ambulatory component reported TM to be an important competency compared to those without an ambulatory component.ConclusionsThe extent to which TM was used in the IM clinical clerkship, and across clinical clerkships, increased substantially when medical students were removed from in-person clinical duties as a response to COVID-19. When students returned to in-person clinical duties, experiences in TM continued, suggesting the continued value of TM as part of the formal education of students during the medicine clerkship. Curricula and faculty development will be needed to support TM education.
| S-EPMC8423074 | biostudies-literature