Proposed standards for medical education submissions to the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cook DA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2517930 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Proposed standards for medical education submissions to the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
Cook David A DA Bowen Judith L JL Gerrity Martha S MS Kalet Adina L AL Kogan Jennifer R JR Spickard Anderson A Wayne Diane B DB
Journal of general internal medicine 20080701 7
To help authors design rigorous studies and prepare clear and informative manuscripts, improve the transparency of editorial decisions, and raise the bar on educational scholarship, the Deputy Editors of the Journal of General Internal Medicine articulate standards for medical education submissions to the Journal. General standards include: (1) quality questions, (2) quality methods to match the questions, (3) insightful interpretation of findings, (4) transparent, unbiased reporting, and (5) at ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Lifestyle medicine (LM) is an emerging specialty that is gaining momentum and support from around the world. The American Medical Association passed a resolution to support incorporating LM curricula in medical schools in 2017. Since then, the American College of Lifestyle Medicine Undergraduate Medical Education Task Force has created a framework for incorporating LM into medical school curricula. This article provides competencies for medical school LM curriculum implementation and illustrates how they relate to the Association of American Medical College's Core Entrustable Professional Activities and the LM Certification Competencies from the American Board of Lifestyle Medicine. Finally, standards are presented for how medical schools may receive certification for integrating LM into their curriculum and how medical students can work toward becoming board certified in LM through an educational pathway.
| S-EPMC8504338 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8390633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEmpathic communication skills have a growing presence in graduate medical education to empower trainees in serious illness communication.ObjectiveEvaluate the impact, feasibility, and acceptability of a shared communication training intervention for residents of different specialties.DesignA randomized controlled study of standard education v. our empathic communication skills-building intervention: VitalTalk-powered workshop and formative bedside feedback using a validated observable behavioral checklist.Setting/subjectsDuring the 2018-2019 academic year, our intervention was implemented at a large single-academic medical center in the United States involving 149 internal medicine and general surgery residents.MeasurementsImpact outcomes included observable communication skills measured in standardized patient encounters (SPEs), and self-reported communication confidence and burnout collected by surveys. Analyses included descriptive and inferential statistics, including independent and paired t tests and multiple regression model to predict post-SPE performance.ResultsOf residents randomized to the intervention, 96% (n = 71/74) completed the VitalTalk-powered workshop and 42% (n = 30/71) of those residents completed the formative bedside feedback. The intervention demonstrated a 33% increase of observable behaviors (p < 0.001) with improvement in all eight skill categories, compared with the control who only showed improvement in five. Intervention residents demonstrated improved confidence in performing all elicited communication skills such as express empathy, elicit values, and manage uncertainty (p < 0.001).ConclusionsOur educational intervention increased residents' confidence and use of essential communication skills. Facilitating a VitalTalk-powered workshop for medical and surgical specialties was feasible and offered a shared learning experience for trainees to benefit from expert palliative care learning outside their field.
| S-EPMC8994435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRelevant clinical information is often missing when a patient sees a specialist after being referred by another physician in the ambulatory setting. This can result in missed or delayed diagnoses, delayed treatment, unnecessary testing, and drug interactions. Residents' attitudes toward providing clinical information at the time of referral and their perspectives toward training on referral skills are not clear. We sought to assess internal medicine residents' attitudes toward and experiences with outpatient referrals.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey in October-December 2018 of all internal medicine interns and residents affiliated with a large, urban internal medicine residency program in New York, NY. We used a novel survey instrument that included 13 questions about attitudes toward and experiences with outpatient referrals. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the results.ResultsOverall, 122 of 132 residents participated (92% response rate). Respondents were approximately equally distributed across post-graduate years 1-3. Although 83% of residents reported that it is "always" important to provide the clinical reason for a referral, only 11% stated that they "always" provide a sufficient amount of clinical information for the consulting provider when making a referral. Only 9% of residents "strongly agree" that residency provides sufficient training in knowing when to refer patients, and only 8% "strongly agree" that residency provides sufficient training in what information to provide the consulting physician.ConclusionsThese results suggest a substantial discrepancy between the amount of information residents believe they should provide at the time of a referral and the amount they actually provide. Many residents report not receiving adequate training during residency on when to refer patients and what clinical information to provide at the time of referral. Improvements to medical education regarding outpatient referrals are urgently needed.
| S-EPMC7392837 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1828092 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextTraditional methods of setting curricular guidelines using experts or consensus panels may miss important areas of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that need to be addressed in the training of medical students and residents.ObjectiveTo seek input from medical students and internal medicine residents ("trainees") on their perception of their needs for training in Geriatrics.DesignTwo assessment methods were used (1) focus groups with students and residents were conducted by professional facilitators and the transcripts analyzed for areas of agreement and divergence and (2) geriatric medicine experts and ward attendings were surveyed to examine training gaps raised by trainees during Geriatric Guest Attending Rounds.ResultsTrainees perceived training gaps in caring for elderly patients in the areas of (1) recognizing and addressing the complex, multifactorial nature of illness; (2) setting priorities and goals for work-up and intervention; (3) communication with families and with patients with cognitive disorders; (4) assessment of a patient for discharge from the hospital and the services at different sites in which patients may receive care. They recounted feeling overwhelmed by complex patients and social situations while acknowledging the special aspects of connecting with older patients. The gaps identified by trainees differ from and complement the curriculum guidelines set by expert recommendations.ConclusionTrainees identified gaps in skills and knowledge leading to trainee frustration and potentially adverse outcomes in caring for elderly patients. Development of curriculum guidelines should include assessment of trainees' perceived learning needs.
| S-EPMC1924752 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Telehealth services, specifically telemedicine audio-video and audio-only patient encounters, expanded dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic through temporary waivers and flexibilities tied to the public health emergency. Early studies demonstrate significant potential to advance the quintuple aim (patient experience, health outcomes, cost, clinician well-being, and equity). Supported well, telemedicine can particularly improve patient satisfaction, health outcomes, and equity. Implemented poorly, telemedicine can facilitate unsafe care, worsen disparities, and waste resources. Without further action from lawmakers and agencies, payment will end for many telemedicine services currently used by millions of Americans at the end of 2024. Policymakers, health systems, clinicians, and educators must decide how to support, implement, and sustain telemedicine, and long-term studies and clinical practice guidelines are emerging to provide direction. In this position statement, we use clinical vignettes to review relevant literature and highlight where key actions are needed. These include areas where telemedicine must be expanded (e.g., to support chronic disease management) and where guidelines are needed (e.g., to prevent inequitable offering of telemedicine services and prevent unsafe or low-value care). We provide policy, clinical practice, and education recommendations for telemedicine on behalf of the Society of General Internal Medicine. Policy recommendations include ending geographic and site restrictions, expanding the definition of telemedicine to include audio-only services, establishing appropriate telemedicine service codes, and expanding broadband access to all Americans. Clinical practice recommendations include ensuring appropriate telemedicine use (for limited acute care situations or in conjunction with in-person services to extend longitudinal care relationships), that the choice of modality be done through patient-clinician shared decision-making, and that health systems design telemedicine services through community partnerships to ensure equitable implementation. Education recommendations include developing telemedicine-specific educational strategies for trainees that align with accreditation body competencies and providing educators with protected time and faculty development resources.
| S-EPMC10124932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionUnwarranted variation in patient care among physicians is associated with negative patient outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Care variation likely also exists for resident physicians. Despite the global movement towards outcomes-based and competency-based medical education, current assessment strategies in residency do not routinely incorporate clinical outcomes. The widespread use of electronic health records (EHRs) may enable the implementation of in-training assessments that incorporate clinical care and patient outcomes.Methods and analysisThe General Medicine Inpatient Initiative Medical Education Database (GEMINI MedED) is a retrospective cohort study of senior residents (postgraduate year 2/3) enrolled in the University of Toronto Internal Medicine (IM) programme between 1 April 2010 and 31 December 2020. This study focuses on senior IM residents and patients they admit overnight to four academic hospitals. Senior IM residents are responsible for overseeing all overnight admissions; thus, care processes and outcomes for these clinical encounters can be at least partially attributed to the care they provide. Call schedules from each hospital, which list the date, location and senior resident on-call, will be used to link senior residents to EHR data of patients admitted during their on-call shifts. Patient data will be derived from the GEMINI database, which contains administrative (eg, demographic and disposition) and clinical data (eg, laboratory and radiological investigation results) for patients admitted to IM at the four academic hospitals. Overall, this study will examine three domains of resident practice: (1) case-mix variation across residents, hospitals and academic year, (2) resident-sensitive quality measures (EHR-derived metrics that are partially attributable to resident care) and (3) variations in patient outcomes across residents and factors that contribute to such variation.Ethics and disseminationGEMINI MedED was approved by the University of Toronto Ethics Board (RIS#39339). Results from this study will be presented in academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals.
| S-EPMC9511606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDeficiencies in medical education research quality are widely acknowledged. Content, internal structure, and criterion validity evidence support the use of the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) to measure education research quality, but predictive validity evidence has not been explored.ObjectiveTo describe the quality of manuscripts submitted to the 2008 Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) medical education issue and determine whether MERSQI scores predict editorial decisions.Design and participantsCross-sectional study of original, quantitative research studies submitted for publication.MeasurementsStudy quality measured by MERSQI scores (possible range 5-18).ResultsOf 131 submitted manuscripts, 100 met inclusion criteria. The mean (SD) total MERSQI score was 9.6 (2.6), range 5-15.5. Most studies used single-group cross-sectional (54%) or pre-post designs (32%), were conducted at one institution (78%), and reported satisfaction or opinion outcomes (56%). Few (36%) reported validity evidence for evaluation instruments. A one-point increase in MERSQI score was associated with editorial decisions to send manuscripts for peer review versus reject without review (OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.07-1.61, p = 0.009) and to invite revisions after review versus reject after review (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.05-1.58, p = 0.02). MERSQI scores predicted final acceptance versus rejection (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.10-1.58, p = 0.003). The mean total MERSQI score of accepted manuscripts was significantly higher than rejected manuscripts (10.7 [2.5] versus 9.0 [2.4], p = 0.003).ConclusionsMERSQI scores predicted editorial decisions and identified areas of methodological strengths and weaknesses in submitted manuscripts. Researchers, reviewers, and editors might use this instrument as a measure of methodological quality.
| S-EPMC2517948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFeedback is essential for improving the skills of continuing medical education (CME) presenters. However, there has been little research on improving the quality of feedback to CME presenters.ObjectivesTo validate an instrument for generating balanced and behavior-specific feedback from a national cross-section of participants to presenters at a large internal medicine CME course.Design, setting, and participantsA prospective, randomized validation study with qualitative data analysis that included all 317 participants at a Mayo Clinic internal medicine CME course in 2009.MeasurementsAn 8-item (5-point Likert scales) CME faculty assessment enhanced study form (ESF) was designed based on literature and expert review. Course participants were randomized to a standard form, a generic study form (GSF), or the ESF. The dimensionality of instrument scores was determined using factor analysis to account for clustered data. Internal consistency and interrater reliabilities were calculated. Associations between overall feedback scores and presenter and presentation variables were identified using generalized estimating equations to account for multiple observations within talk and speaker combinations. Two raters reached consensus on qualitative themes and independently analyzed narrative entries for evidence of balanced and behavior-specific comments.ResultsFactor analysis of 5,241 evaluations revealed a uni-dimensional model for measuring CME presenter feedback. Overall internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = 0.94) and internal consistency reliability (ICC range 0.88-0.95) were excellent. Feedback scores were associated with presenters' academic ranks (mean score): Instructor (4.12), Assistant Professor (4.38), Associate Professor (4.56), Professor (4.70) (p = 0.046). Qualitative analysis revealed that the ESF generated the highest numbers of balanced comments (GSF = 11, ESF = 26; p = 0.01) and behavior-specific comments (GSF = 64, ESF = 104; p = 0.001).ConclusionsWe describe a practical and validated method for generating balanced and behavior-specific feedback for CME presenters in internal medicine. Our simple method for prompting course participants to give balanced and behavior-specific comments may ultimately provide CME presenters with feedback for improving their presentations.
| S-EPMC3304027 | biostudies-literature