PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (984252)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Accreditation council for graduate medical education (ACGME) annual anesthesiology residency and fellowship program review: a "report card" model for continuous improvement 
BMC Medical Education  2010;10:13.
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires an annual evaluation of all ACGME-accredited residency and fellowship programs to assess program quality. The results of this evaluation must be used to improve the program. This manuscript describes a metric to be used in conducting ACGME-mandated annual program review of ACGME-accredited anesthesiology residencies and fellowships.
Methods
A variety of metrics to assess anesthesiology residency and fellowship programs are identified by the authors through literature review and considered for use in constructing a program "report card."
Results
Metrics used to assess program quality include success in achieving American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) certification, performance on the annual ABA/American Society of Anesthesiology In-Training Examination, performance on mock oral ABA certification examinations, trainee scholarly activities (publications and presentations), accreditation site visit and internal review results, ACGME and alumni survey results, National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) results, exit interview feedback, diversity data and extensive program/rotation/faculty/curriculum evaluations by trainees and faculty. The results are used to construct a "report card" that provides a high-level review of program performance and can be used in a continuous quality improvement process.
Conclusions
An annual program review is required to assess all ACGME-accredited residency and fellowship programs to monitor and improve program quality. We describe an annual review process based on metrics that can be used to focus attention on areas for improvement and track program performance year-to-year. A "report card" format is described as a high-level tool to track educational outcomes.
doi:10.1186/1472-6920-10-13
PMCID: PMC2830223  PMID: 20141641
2.  Burnout and Distress Among Internal Medicine Program Directors: Results of A National Survey 
Journal of General Internal Medicine  2013;28(8):1056-1063.
BACKGROUND
Physician burnout and distress has been described in national studies of practicing physicians, internal medicine (IM) residents, IM clerkship directors, and medical school deans. However, no comparable national data exist for IM residency program directors.
OBJECTIVE
To assess burnout and distress among IM residency program directors, and to evaluate relationships of distress with personal and program characteristics and perceptions regarding implementation and consequences of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) regulations.
DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS
The 2010 Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine (APDIM) Annual Survey, developed by the APDIM Survey Committee, was sent in August 2010 to the 377 program directors with APDIM membership, representing 99.0 % of the 381 United States categorical IM residency programs.
MAIN MEASURES
The 2010 APDIM Annual Survey included validated items on well-being and distress, including questions addressing quality of life, satisfaction with work-life balance, and burnout. Questions addressing personal and program characteristics and perceptions regarding implementation and consequences of ACGME regulations were also included.
KEY RESULTS
Of 377 eligible program directors, 282 (74.8 %) completed surveys. Among respondents, 12.4 % and 28.8 % rated their quality of life and satisfaction with work-life balance negatively, respectively. Also, 27.0 % reported emotional exhaustion, 10.4 % reported depersonalization, and 28.7 % reported overall burnout. These rates were lower than those reported previously in national studies of medical students, IM residents, practicing physicians, IM clerkship directors, and medical school deans. Aspects of distress were more common among younger program directors, women, and those reporting greater weekly work hours. Work–home conflicts were common and associated with all domains of distress, especially if not resolved in a manner effectively balancing work and home responsibilities. Associations with program characteristics such as program size and American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) pass rates were not found apart from higher rates of depersonalization among directors of community-based programs (23.5 % vs. 8.6 %, p = 0.01). We did not observe any consistent associations between distress and perceptions of implementation and consequences of program regulations.
CONCLUSIONS
The well-being of IM program directors across domains, including quality of life, satisfaction with work-life balance, and burnout, appears generally superior to that of medical trainees, practicing physicians, and other medical educators nationally. Additionally, it is reassuring that program directors' perceptions of their ability to respond to current regulatory requirements are not adversely associated with distress. However, the increased distress levels among younger program directors, women, and those at community-based training programs reported in this study are important concerns worthy of further study.
doi:10.1007/s11606-013-2349-9
PMCID: PMC3710382  PMID: 23595924
graduate medical education; residency; burnout; well-being
3.  Duty Hour Recommendations and Implications for Meeting the ACGME Core Competencies: Views of Residency Directors 
Mayo Clinic Proceedings  2011;86(3):185-191.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the views of residency program directors regarding the effect of the 2010 duty hour recommendations on the 6 core competencies of graduate medical education.
METHODS: US residency program directors in internal medicine, pediatrics, and general surgery were e-mailed a survey from July 8 through July 20, 2010, after the 2010 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty hour recommendations were published. Directors were asked to rate the implications of the new recommendations for the 6 ACGME core competencies as well as for continuity of inpatient care and resident fatigue.
RESULTS: Of 719 eligible program directors, 464 (65%) responded. Most program directors believe that the new ACGME recommendations will decrease residents' continuity with hospitalized patients (404/464 [87%]) and will not change (303/464 [65%]) or will increase (26/464 [6%]) resident fatigue. Additionally, most program directors (249-363/464 [53%-78%]) believe that the new duty hour restrictions will decrease residents' ability to develop competency in 5 of the 6 core areas. Surgery directors were more likely than internal medicine directors to believe that the ACGME recommendations will decrease residents' competency in patient care (odds ratio [OR], 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-6.3), medical knowledge (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.2), practice-based learning and improvement (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.7-4.4), interpersonal and communication skills (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0), and professionalism (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0).
CONCLUSION: Residency program directors' reactions to ACGME duty hour recommendations demonstrate a marked degree of concern about educating a competent generation of future physicians in the face of increasing duty hour standards and regulation.
The reactions of residency program directors to the ACGME duty hour recommendations demonstrate a marked degree of concern about educating a competent generation of future physicians in the face of increasing duty hour standards and regulation.
doi:10.4065/mcp.2010.0635
PMCID: PMC3046937  PMID: 21307391
4.  Implementing the 2009 Institute of Medicine recommendations on resident physician work hours, supervision, and safety 
Long working hours and sleep deprivation have been a facet of physician training in the US since the advent of the modern residency system. However, the scientific evidence linking fatigue with deficits in human performance, accidents and errors in industries from aeronautics to medicine, nuclear power, and transportation has mounted over the last 40 years. This evidence has also spawned regulations to help ensure public safety across safety-sensitive industries, with the notable exception of medicine.
In late 2007, at the behest of the US Congress, the Institute of Medicine embarked on a year-long examination of the scientific evidence linking resident physician sleep deprivation with clinical performance deficits and medical errors. The Institute of Medicine’s report, entitled “Resident duty hours: Enhancing sleep, supervision and safety”, published in January 2009, recommended new limits on resident physician work hours and workload, increased supervision, a heightened focus on resident physician safety, training in structured handovers and quality improvement, more rigorous external oversight of work hours and other aspects of residency training, and the identification of expanded funding sources necessary to implement the recommended reforms successfully and protect the public and resident physicians themselves from preventable harm.
Given that resident physicians comprise almost a quarter of all physicians who work in hospitals, and that taxpayers, through Medicare and Medicaid, fund graduate medical education, the public has a deep investment in physician training. Patients expect to receive safe, high-quality care in the nation’s teaching hospitals. Because it is their safety that is at issue, their voices should be central in policy decisions affecting patient safety. It is likewise important to integrate the perspectives of resident physicians, policy makers, and other constituencies in designing new policies. However, since its release, discussion of the Institute of Medicine report has been largely confined to the medical education community, led by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).
To begin gathering these perspectives and developing a plan to implement safer work hours for resident physicians, a conference entitled “Enhancing sleep, supervision and safety: What will it take to implement the Institute of Medicine recommendations?” was held at Harvard Medical School on June 17–18, 2010. This White Paper is a product of a diverse group of 26 representative stakeholders bringing relevant new information and innovative practices to bear on a critical patient safety problem. Given that our conference included experts from across disciplines with diverse perspectives and interests, not every recommendation was endorsed by each invited conference participant. However, every recommendation made here was endorsed by the majority of the group, and many were endorsed unanimously. Conference members participated in the process, reviewed the final product, and provided input before publication. Participants provided their individual perspectives, which do not necessarily represent the formal views of any organization.
In September 2010 the ACGME issued new rules to go into effect on July 1, 2011. Unfortunately, they stop considerably short of the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations and those endorsed by this conference. In particular, the ACGME only applied the limitation of 16 hours to first-year resident physicans. Thus, it is clear that policymakers, hospital administrators, and residency program directors who wish to implement safer health care systems must go far beyond what the ACGME will require. We hope this White Paper will serve as a guide and provide encouragement for that effort.
Resident physician workload and supervision
By the end of training, a resident physician should be able to practice independently. Yet much of resident physicians’ time is dominated by tasks with little educational value. The caseload can be so great that inadequate reflective time is left for learning based on clinical experiences. In addition, supervision is often vaguely defined and discontinuous. Medical malpractice data indicate that resident physicians are frequently named in lawsuits, most often for lack of supervision. The recommendations are: The ACGME should adjust resident physicians workload requirements to optimize educational value. Resident physicians as well as faculty should be involved in work redesign that eliminates nonessential and noneducational activity from resident physician dutiesMechanisms should be developed for identifying in real time when a resident physician’s workload is excessive, and processes developed to activate additional providersTeamwork should be actively encouraged in delivery of patient care. Historically, much of medical training has focused on individual knowledge, skills, and responsibility. As health care delivery has become more complex, it will be essential to train resident and attending physicians in effective teamwork that emphasizes collective responsibility for patient care and recognizes the signs, both individual and systemic, of a schedule and working conditions that are too demanding to be safeHospitals should embrace the opportunities that resident physician training redesign offers. Hospitals should recognize and act on the potential benefits of work redesign, eg, increased efficiency, reduced costs, improved quality of care, and resident physician and attending job satisfactionAttending physicians should supervise all hospital admissions. Resident physicians should directly discuss all admissions with attending physicians. Attending physicians should be both cognizant of and have input into the care patients are to receive upon admission to the hospitalInhouse supervision should be required for all critical care services, including emergency rooms, intensive care units, and trauma services. Resident physicians should not be left unsupervised to care for critically ill patients. In settings in which the acuity is high, physicians who have completed residency should provide direct supervision for resident physicians. Supervising physicians should always be physically in the hospital for supervision of resident physicians who care for critically ill patientsThe ACGME should explicitly define “good” supervision by specialty and by year of training. Explicit requirements for intensity and level of training for supervision of specific clinical scenarios should be providedCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should use graduate medical education funding to provide incentives to programs with proven, effective levels of supervision. Although this action would require federal legislation, reimbursement rules would help to ensure that hospitals pay attention to the importance of good supervision and require it from their training programs
Resident physician work hours
Although the IOM “Sleep, supervision and safety” report provides a comprehensive review and discussion of all aspects of graduate medical education training, the report’s focal point is its recommendations regarding the hours that resident physicians are currently required to work. A considerable body of scientific evidence, much of it cited by the Institute of Medicine report, describes deteriorating performance in fatigued humans, as well as specific studies on resident physician fatigue and preventable medical errors.
The question before this conference was what work redesign and cultural changes are needed to reform work hours as recommended by the Institute of Medicine’s evidence-based report? Extensive scientific data demonstrate that shifts exceeding 12–16 hours without sleep are unsafe. Several principles should be followed in efforts to reduce consecutive hours below this level and achieve safer work schedules. The recommendations are: Limit resident physician work hours to 12–16 hour maximum shiftsA minimum of 10 hours off duty should be scheduled between shiftsResident physician input into work redesign should be actively solicitedSchedules should be designed that adhere to principles of sleep and circadian science; this includes careful consideration of the effects of multiple consecutive night shifts, and provision of adequate time off after night work, as specified in the IOM reportResident physicians should not be scheduled up to the maximum permissible limits; emergencies frequently occur that require resident physicians to stay longer than their scheduled shifts, and this should be anticipated in scheduling resident physicians’ work shiftsHospitals should anticipate the need for iterative improvement as new schedules are initiated; be prepared to learn from the initial phase-in, and change the plan as neededAs resident physician work hours are redesigned, attending physicians should also be considered; a potential consequence of resident physician work hour reduction and increased supervisory requirements may be an increase in work for attending physicians; this should be carefully monitored, and adjustments to attending physician work schedules made as needed to prevent unsafe work hours or working conditions for this group“Home call” should be brought under the overall limits of working hours; work load and hours should be monitored in each residency program to ensure that resident physicians and fellows on home call are getting sufficient sleepMedicare funding for graduate medical education in each hospital should be linked with adherence to the Institute of Medicine limits on resident physician work hours
Moonlighting by resident physicians
The Institute of Medicine report recommended including external as well as internal moonlighting in working hour limits. The recommendation is: All moonlighting work hours should be included in the ACGME working hour limits and actively monitored. Hospitals should formalize a moonlighting policy and establish systems for actively monitoring resident physician moonlighting
Safety of resident physicians
The “Sleep, supervision and safety” report also addresses fatigue-related harm done to resident physicians themselves. The report focuses on two main sources of physical injury to resident physicians impaired by fatigue, ie, needle-stick exposure to blood-borne pathogens and motor vehicle crashes. Providing safe transportation home for resident physicians is a logistical and financial challenge for hospitals. Educating physicians at all levels on the dangers of fatigue is clearly required to change driving behavior so that safe hospital-funded transport home is used effectively. Fatigue-related injury prevention (including not driving while drowsy) should be taught in medical school and during residency, and reinforced with attending physicians; hospitals and residency programs must be informed that resident physicians’ ability to judge their own level of impairment is impaired when they are sleep deprived; hence, leaving decisions about the capacity to drive to impaired resident physicians is not recommendedHospitals should provide transportation to all resident physicians who report feeling too tired to drive safely; in addition, although consecutive work should not exceed 16 hours, hospitals should provide transportation for all resident physicians who, because of unforeseen reasons or emergencies, work for longer than consecutive 24 hours; transportation under these circumstances should be automatically provided to house staff, and should not rely on self-identification or request
Training in effective handovers and quality improvement
Handover practice for resident physicians, attendings, and other health care providers has long been identified as a weak link in patient safety throughout health care settings. Policies to improve handovers of care must be tailored to fit the appropriate clinical scenario, recognizing that information overload can also be a problem. At the heart of improving handovers is the organizational effort to improve quality, an effort in which resident physicians have typically been insufficiently engaged. The recommendations are: Hospitals should train attending and resident physicians in effective handovers of careHospitals should create uniform processes for handovers that are tailored to meet each clinical setting; all handovers should be done verbally and face-to-face, but should also utilize written toolsWhen possible, hospitals should integrate hand-over tools into their electronic medical records (EMR) systems; these systems should be standardized to the extent possible across residency programs in a hospital, but may be tailored to the needs of specific programs and services; federal government should help subsidize adoption of electronic medical records by hospitals to improve signoutWhen feasible, handovers should be a team effort including nurses, patients, and familiesHospitals should include residents in their quality improvement and patient safety efforts; the ACGME should specify in their core competency requirements that resident physicians work on quality improvement projects; likewise, the Joint Commission should require that resident physicians be included in quality improvement and patient safety programs at teaching hospitals; hospital administrators and residency program directors should create opportunities for resident physicians to become involved in ongoing quality improvement projects and root cause analysis teams; feedback on successful quality improvement interventions should be shared with resident physicians and broadly disseminatedQuality improvement/patient safety concepts should be integral to the medical school curriculum; medical school deans should elevate the topics of patient safety, quality improvement, and teamwork; these concepts should be integrated throughout the medical school curriculum and reinforced throughout residency; mastery of these concepts by medical students should be tested on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) stepsFederal government should support involvement of resident physicians in quality improvement efforts; initiatives to improve quality by including resident physicians in quality improvement projects should be financially supported by the Department of Health and Human Services
Monitoring and oversight of the ACGME
While the ACGME is a key stakeholder in residency training, external voices are essential to ensure that public interests are heard in the development and monitoring of standards. Consequently, the Institute of Medicine report recommended external oversight and monitoring through the Joint Commission and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The recommendations are: Make comprehensive fatigue management a Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal; fatigue is a safety concern not only for resident physicians, but also for nurses, attending physicians, and other health care workers; the Joint Commission should seek to ensure that all health care workers, not just resident physicians, are working as safely as possibleFederal government, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, should encourage development of comprehensive fatigue management programs which all health systems would eventually be required to implementMake ACGME compliance with working hours a “ condition of participation” for reimbursement of direct and indirect graduate medical education costs; financial incentives will greatly increase the adoption of and compliance with ACGME standards
Future financial support for implementation
The Institute of Medicine’s report estimates that $1.7 billion (in 2008 dollars) would be needed to implement its recommendations. Twenty-five percent of that amount ($376 million) will be required just to bring hospitals into compliance with the existing 2003 ACGME rules. Downstream savings to the health care system could potentially result from safer care, but these benefits typically do not accrue to hospitals and residency programs, who have been asked historically to bear the burden of residency reform costs. The recommendations are: The Institute of Medicine should convene a panel of stakeholders, including private and public funders of health care and graduate medical education, to lay down the concrete steps necessary to identify and allocate the resources needed to implement the recommendations contained in the IOM “Resident duty hours: Enhancing sleep, supervision and safety” report. Conference participants suggested several approaches to engage public and private support for this initiativeEfforts to find additional funding to implement the Institute of Medicine recommendations should focus more broadly on patient safety and health care delivery reform; policy efforts focused narrowly upon resident physician work hours are less likely to succeed than broad patient safety initiatives that include residency redesign as a key componentHospitals should view the Institute of Medicine recommendations as an opportunity to begin resident physician work redesign projects as the core of a business model that embraces safety and ultimately saves resourcesBoth the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should take the Institute of Medicine recommendations into consideration when promulgating rules for innovation grantsThe National Health Care Workforce Commission should consider the Institute of Medicine recommendations when analyzing the nation’s physician workforce needs
Recommendations for future research
Conference participants concurred that convening the stakeholders and agreeing on a research agenda was key. Some observed that some sectors within the medical education community have been reluctant to act on the data. Several logical funders for future research were identified. But above all agencies, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is the only stakeholder that funds graduate medical education upstream and will reap savings downstream if preventable medical errors are reduced as a result of reform of resident physician work hours.
doi:10.2147/NSS.S19649
PMCID: PMC3630963  PMID: 23616719
resident; hospital; working hours; safety
5.  Charting the Road to Competence: Developmental Milestones for Internal Medicine Residency Training 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Outcome Project requires that residency program directors objectively document that their residents achieve competence in 6 general dimensions of practice.
Intervention
In November 2007, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and the ACGME initiated the development of milestones for internal medicine residency training. ABIM and ACGME convened a 33-member milestones task force made up of program directors, experts in evaluation and quality, and representatives of internal medicine stakeholder organizations. This article reports on the development process and the resulting list of proposed milestones for each ACGME competency.
Outcomes
The task force adopted the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition as a framework the internal medicine milestones, and calibrated the milestones with the expectation that residents achieve, at a minimum, the “competency” level in the 5-step progression by the completion of residency. The task force also developed general recommendations for strategies to evaluate the milestones.
Discussion
The milestones resulting from this effort will promote competency-based resident education in internal medicine, and will allow program directors to track the progress of residents and inform decisions regarding promotion and readiness for independent practice. In addition, the milestones may guide curriculum development, suggest specific assessment strategies, provide benchmarks for resident self-directed assessment-seeking, and assist remediation by facilitating identification of specific deficits. Finally, by making explicit the profession's expectations for graduates and providing a degree of national standardization in evaluation, the milestones may improve public accountability for residency training.
doi:10.4300/01.01.0003
PMCID: PMC2931179  PMID: 21975701
6.  Clinical instructors' perception of a faculty development programme promoting postgraduate year-1 (PGY1) residents' ACGME six core competencies: a 2-year study 
BMJ Open  2011;1(2):e000200.
Objective
The six core competencies designated by Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) are essential for establishing a patient centre holistic medical system. The authors developed a faculty programme to promote the postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) resident, ACGME six core competencies. The study aims to assess the clinical instructors' perception, attitudes and subjective impression towards the various sessions of the ‘faculty development programme for teaching ACGME competencies.’
Methods
During 2009 and 2010, 134 clinical instructors participated in the programme to establish their ability to teach and assess PGY1 residents about ACGME competencies.
Results
The participants in the faculty development programme reported that the skills most often used while teaching were learnt during circuit and itinerant bedside, physical examination teaching, mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) evaluation demonstration, training workshop and videotapes of ‘how to teach ACGME competencies.’ Participants reported that circuit bedside teaching and mini-CEX evaluation demonstrations helped them in the interpersonal and communication skills domain, and that the itinerant teaching demonstrations helped them in the professionalism domain, while physical examination teaching and mini-CEX evaluation demonstrations helped them in the patients' care domain. Both the training workshop and videotape session increase familiarity with teaching and assessing skills. Participants who applied the skills learnt from the faculty development programme the most in their teaching and assessment came from internal medicine departments, were young attending physician and had experience as PGY1 clinical instructors.
Conclusions
According to the clinical instructors' response, our faculty development programme effectively increased their familiarity with various teaching and assessment skills needed to teach PGY1 residents and ACGME competencies, and these clinical instructors also then subsequently apply these skills.
Article summary
Article focus
In order to train PGY1 residents, we need to help clinical instructors to become familiar with the teaching and assessment skills that form the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education six core-competencies.
Our study used a self-reported questionnaires based analysis to evaluate the clinical instructors' perception to our faculty development programme.
Key messages
Participants reported that their most commonly used skills were learnt from itinerant and circuit bedside teaching, and mini-clinical evaluation exercise evaluation demonstration in our programme.
Participants also reported that the 40 h basic training course improved their abilities to train and assess PGY1 residents in patient care, interpersonal and communication skills, and medical knowledge domains whereas postcourse training workshop and videotape session enhanced their ability in system-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, and professionalism domains.
A serial follow-up questionnaire suggested that the degree of participant application of skills learnt from our programme increased progressively after finishing the 40 h basic training course, the postcourse training workshop and videotape session.
Strengths and limitations of this study
According to the clinical instructors' responses, our programme effectively increased their familiarity with teaching and assessment skills needed when teaching PGY1 residents' Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies and that these skills were subsequently applies.
This study was limited by the fact that questionnaire used to track and assess the effectiveness of the training programme may have had information and recall bias. In addition, this study had a relatively small sample size and did not contain a control group. However, no controlled educational trials on this subject have been published as yet.
doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000200
PMCID: PMC3225591  PMID: 22116089
7.  Assessing Intern Core Competencies With an Objective Structured Clinical Examination 
Background
Residents are evaluated using Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core competencies. An Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a potential evaluation tool to measure these competencies and provide outcome data.
Objective
Create an OSCE to evaluate and demonstrate improvement in intern core competencies of patient care, medical knowledge, practice-based learning and improvement, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, and systems-based practice before and after internship.
Methods
From 2006 to 2008, 106 interns from 10 medical specialties were evaluated with a preinternship and postinternship OSCE at Madigan Army Medical Center. The OSCE included eight 12-minute stations that collectively evaluated the 6 ACGME core competencies using human patient simulators, standardized patients, and clinical scenarios. Interns were scored using objective and subjective criteria, with a maximum score of 100 for each competency. Stations included death notification, abdominal pain, transfusion consent, suture skills, wellness history, chest pain, altered mental status, and computer literature search. These stations were chosen by specialty program directors, created with input from board-certified specialists, and were peer reviewed.
Results
All OSCE testing on the 106 interns (ages 25 to 44 [average, 28.6]; 70 [66%] men; 65 [58%] allopathic medical school graduates) resulted in statistically significant improvement in all ACGME core competencies: patient care (71.9% to 80.0%, P < .001), medical knowledge (59.6% to 78.6%, P < .001), practice-based learning and improvement (45.2% to 63.0%, P < .001), interpersonal and communication skills (77.5% to 83.1%, P < .001), professionalism (74.8% to 85.1%, P < .001), and systems-based practice (56.6% to 76.5%, P < .001).
Conclusion
An OSCE during internship can evaluate incoming baseline ACGME core competencies and test for interval improvement. The OSCE is a valuable assessment tool to provide outcome measures on resident competency performance and evaluate program effectiveness.
doi:10.4300/01.01.0006
PMCID: PMC2931201  PMID: 21975704
8.  The research rotation: competency-based structured and novel approach to research training of internal medicine residents 
Background
In the United States, the Accreditation Council of graduate medical education (ACGME) requires all accredited Internal medicine residency training programs to facilitate resident scholarly activities. However, clinical experience and medical education still remain the main focus of graduate medical education in many Internal Medicine (IM) residency-training programs. Left to design the structure, process and outcome evaluation of the ACGME research requirement, residency-training programs are faced with numerous barriers. Many residency programs report having been cited by the ACGME residency review committee in IM for lack of scholarly activity by residents.
Methods
We would like to share our experience at Lincoln Hospital, an affiliate of Weill Medical College Cornell University New York, in designing and implementing a successful structured research curriculum based on ACGME competencies taught during a dedicated "research rotation".
Results
Since the inception of the research rotation in 2004, participation of our residents among scholarly activities has substantially increased. Our residents increasingly believe and appreciate that research is an integral component of residency training and essential for practice of medicine.
Conclusion
Internal medicine residents' outlook in research can be significantly improved using a research curriculum offered through a structured and dedicated research rotation. This is exemplified by the improvement noted in resident satisfaction, their participation in scholarly activities and resident research outcomes since the inception of the research rotation in our internal medicine training program.
doi:10.1186/1472-6920-6-52
PMCID: PMC1630691  PMID: 17044924
9.  Incoming Interns' Perspectives on the Institute of Medicine Recommendations for Residents' Duty Hours 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has announced revisions to the resident duty hour standards in light of a 2008 Institute of Medicine report that recommended further limits. Soliciting resident input regarding the future of duty hours is critical to ensure trainee buy-in.
Purpose
To assess incoming intern perceptions of duty hour restrictions at 3 teaching hospitals.
Methods
We administered an anonymous survey to incoming interns during orientation at 3 teaching hospitals affiliated with 2 Midwestern medical schools in 2009. Survey questions assessed interns' perceptions of maximum shift length, days off, ACGME oversight, and preferences for a “fatigued post-call intern who admitted patient” versus “well-rested covering intern who just picked up patient” for various clinical scenarios.
Results
Eighty-six percent (299/346) of interns responded. Although 59% agreed that residents should not work over 16 hours without a break, 50% of interns favored the current limits. The majority (78%) of interns desired ability to exceed shift limit for rare cases or clinical opportunities. Most interns (90%) favored oversight by the ACGME, and 97% preferred a well-rested intern for performing a procedure. Meanwhile, only 48% of interns preferred a well-rested intern for discharging a patient or having an end of life discussion. Interns who favored 16-hour limits were less concerned with negative consequences of duty hour restrictions (handoffs, reduced clinical experience) and more likely to choose the well-rested intern for certain scenarios (odds ratio 2.33, 95% confidence interval 1.42–3.85, P  =  .001).
Conclusions
Incoming intern perceptions on limiting duty hours vary. Many interns desire flexibility to exceed limits for interesting clinical opportunities and favor ACGME oversight. Clinical context matters when interns consider the tradeoffs between fatigue and discontinuity.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-10-00049.1
PMCID: PMC3010936  PMID: 22132274
10.  Educational Experiences Residents Perceive As Most Helpful for the Acquisition of the ACGME Competencies 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires physicians in training to be educated in 6 competencies considered important for independent medical practice. There is little information about the experiences that residents feel contribute most to the acquisition of the competencies.
Objective
To understand how residents perceive their learning of the ACGME competencies and to determine which educational activities were most helpful in acquiring these competencies.
Method
A web-based survey created by the graduate medical education office for institutional program monitoring and evaluation was sent to all residents in ACGME-accredited programs at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, from 2007 to 2010. Residents responded to questions about the adequacy of their learning for each of the 6 competencies and which learning activities were most helpful in competency acquisition.
Results
We analyzed 1378 responses collected from postgraduate year-1 (PGY-1) to PGY-3 residents in 12 different residency programs, surveyed between 2007 and 2010. The overall response rate varied by year (66%–82%). Most residents (80%–97%) stated that their learning of the 6 ACGME competencies was “adequate.” Patient care activities and observation of attending physicians and peers were listed as the 2 most helpful learning activities for acquiring the 6 competencies.
Conclusion
Our findings reinforce the importance of learning from role models during patient care activities and the heterogeneity of learning activities needed for acquiring all 6 competencies.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00058.1
PMCID: PMC3399609  PMID: 23730438
11.  Relationships between high-stakes clinical skills exam scores and program director global competency ratings of first-year pediatric residents 
Medical Education Online  2011;16:10.3402/meo.v16i0.7362.
Background
Responding to mandates from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Osteopathic Association (AOA), residency programs have developed competency-based assessment tools. One such tool is the American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians (ACOP) program directors’ annual report. High-stakes clinical skills licensing examinations, such as the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination Level 2-Performance Evaluation (COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE), also assess competency in several clinical domains.
Objective
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between program director competency ratings of first-year osteopathic residents in pediatrics and COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE scores from 2005 to 2009.
Methods
The sample included all 94 pediatric first-year residents who took COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and whose training was reviewed by the ACOP for approval of training between 2005 and 2009. Program director competency ratings and COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE scores (domain and component) were merged and analyzed for relationships.
Results
Biomedical/biomechanical domain scores were positively correlated with overall program director competency ratings. Humanistic domain scores were not significantly correlated with overall program director competency ratings, but did show moderate correlation with ratings for interpersonal and communication skills. The six ACGME or seven AOA competencies assessed empirically by the ACOP program directors’ annual report could not be recovered by principal component analysis; instead, three factors were identified, accounting for 86% of the variance between competency ratings.
Discussion
A few significant correlations were noted between COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE scores and program director competency ratings. Exploring relationships between different clinical skills assessments is inherently difficult because of the heterogeneity of tools used and overlap of constructs within the AOA and ACGME core competencies.
doi:10.3402/meo.v16i0.7362
PMCID: PMC3174084  PMID: 21927550
residency program director ratings; clinical skills testing; high-stakes licensing exam; competency assessment; pediatric residents; external validity; COMLEX-USA
12.  The Utility of Letters of Recommendation in Predicting Resident Success: Can the ACGME Competencies Help? 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core competencies are used to assess resident performance, and recently similar competencies have become an accepted framework for evaluating medical student achievements as well. However, the utility of incorporating the competencies into the resident application has not yet been assessed.
Purpose
The objective of this study was to examine letters of recommendation (LORs) to identify ACGME competency–based themes that might help distinguish the least successful from the most successful residents.
Methods
Residents entering a university-based residency program from 1994 to 2004 were retrospectively evaluated by faculty and ranked in 4 groups according to perceived level of success. Applications from residents in the highest and lowest groups were abstracted. LORs were qualitatively reviewed and analyzed for 9 themes (6 ACGME core competencies and 3 additional performance measures). The mean number of times each theme was mentioned was calculated for each student. Groups were compared using the χ2 test and the Student t test.
Results
Seventy-five residents were eligible for analysis, and 29 residents were ranked in the highest and lowest groups. Baseline demographics and number of LORs did not differ between the two groups. Successful residents had statistically significantly more comments about excellence in the competency areas of patient care, medical knowledge, and interpersonal and communication skills.
Conclusion
LORs can provide useful clues to differentiate between students who are likely to become the least versus the most successful residency program graduates. Greater usage of the ACGME core competencies within LORs may be beneficial.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00010.1
PMCID: PMC3179231  PMID: 22942969
13.  Ambulatory-Based Education in Internal Medicine: Current Organization and Implications for Transformation. Results of A National Survey of Resident Continuity Clinic Directors 
BACKGROUND
Many have called for ambulatory training redesign in internal medicine (IM) residencies to increase primary care career outcomes. Many believe dysfunctional, clinic environments are a key barrier to meaningful ambulatory education, but little is actually known about the educational milieu of continuity clinics nationwide.
OBJECTIVE
We wished to describe the infrastructure and educational milieu at resident continuity clinics and assess clinic readiness to meet new IM-RRC requirements.
DESIGN
National survey of ACGME accredited IM training programs.
PARTICIPANTS
Directors of academic and community-based continuity clinics.
RESULTS
Two hundred and twenty-one out of 365 (62%) of clinic directors representing 49% of training programs responded. Wide variation amongst continuity clinics in size, structure and educational organization exist. Clinics below the 25th percentile of total clinic sessions would not meet RRC-IM requirements for total number of clinic sessions. Only two thirds of clinics provided a longitudinal mentor. Forty-three percent of directors reported their trainees felt stressed in the clinic environment and 25% of clinic directors felt overwhelmed.
LIMITATIONS
The survey used self reported data and was not anonymous. A slight predominance of larger clinics and university based clinics responded. Data may not reflect changes to programs made since 2008.
CONCLUSIONS
This national survey demonstrates that the continuity clinic experience varies widely across IM programs, with many sites not yet meeting new ACGME requirements. The combination of disadvantaged and ill patients with inadequately resourced clinics, stressed residents, and clinic directors suggests that many sites need substantial reorganization and institutional commitment.New paradigms, encouraged by ACGME requirement changes such as increased separation of inpatient and outpatient duties are needed to improve the continuity clinic experience.
doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1437-3
PMCID: PMC3024101  PMID: 20628830
clinic; resident education; ACGME; primary care
14.  Current pediatric rheumatology fellowship training in the United States: what fellows actually do 
Background
Pediatric Rheumatology (PR) training in the US has existed since the 1970’s. In the early 1990’s, the training was formalized into a three year training program by the American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Board of Pediatrics (ABP). Programs have been evaluated every 5 years by the ACGME to remain credentialed and graduates had to pass a written exam to be certified. There has been no report yet that details not just what training fellows should receive in the 32 US PR training programs but what training the trainees are actually receiving.
Methods
After a literature search, a survey was constructed by the authors, then reviewed and revised with the help members of the Executive Committee of the Rheumatology Section of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) using the Delphi technique. IRB approval was obtained from the AAP and Nationwide Children’s Hospital. The list of fellows was obtained from the ABP and the survey sent out to 81 current fellows or fellows just having finished. One repeat e-mail was sent out.
Results
Forty-seven fellows returned the survey by e-mail (58%) with the majority being 3rd year fellows or fellows who had completed their training. The demographics were as expected with females > males and Caucasians> > non-Caucasians. Training appeared quite appropriate in the number of ½ day continuity clinics per week (1–2, 71%), number of patients per clinic (4–5, 60%), inpatient exposure (2–4 inpatients per week, 40%; 5 or greater, 33%), and weekday/weekend call. Fellows attended more didactic activities than required, had ample time for research (54% 21-60/hours per week), and had multiple teaching opportunities. Seventy-seven percent of the trainees presented abstracts at national meetings, 41% had publication. Disease exposure was excellent and joint injection experience sufficient.
Conclusions
Most US PR training programs as a whole provide an appropriate training by current ACGME, American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and ABP standards in: 1) number of continuity clinics; 2) sufficient on-call activities for weekday nights and weekends; 3) joint interdisciplinary conferences; 4) electives 5) didactic activities; 6) scholarly activities; and 7) exposure to diverse rheumatology diseases. Areas of concern were uniformity & standardization of training, need for a customized PR training curriculum, more mentorship, free electives, training in musculoskeletal ultrasound, need for a hands-on OSCE certification exam and more exposure to ACGME competencies.
doi:10.1186/1546-0096-12-8
PMCID: PMC3922187  PMID: 24507769
15.  Resident Research and Scholarly Activity in Internal Medicine Residency Training Programs 
OBJECTIVES
1) To describe how internal medicine residency programs fulfill the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) scholarly activity training requirement including the current context of resident scholarly work, and 2) to compare findings between university and nonuniversity programs.
DESIGN
Cross-sectional mailed survey.
SETTING
ACGME-accredited internal medicine residency programs.
PARTICIPANTS
Internal medicine residency program directors.
MEASUREMENTS
Data were collected on 1) interpretation of the scholarly activity requirement, 2) support for resident scholarship, 3) scholarly activities of residents, 4) attitudes toward resident research, and 5) program characteristics. University and nonuniversity programs were compared.
MAIN RESULTS
The response rate was 78%. Most residents completed a topic review with presentation (median, 100%) to fulfill the requirement. Residents at nonuniversity programs were more likely to complete case reports (median, 40% vs 25%; P =.04) and present at local or regional meetings (median, 25% vs 20%; P =.01), and were just as likely to conduct hypothesis-driven research (median, 20% vs 20%; P =.75) and present nationally (median, 10% vs 5%; P =.10) as residents at university programs. Nonuniversity programs were more likely to report lack of faculty mentors (61% vs 31%; P <.001) and resident interest (55% vs 40%; P =.01) as major barriers to resident scholarship. Programs support resident scholarship through research curricula (47%), funding (46%), and protected time (32%).
CONCLUSIONS
Internal medicine residents complete a variety of projects to fulfill the scholarly activity requirement. Nonuniversity programs are doing as much as university programs in meeting the requirement and supporting resident scholarship despite reporting significant barriers.
doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40270.x
PMCID: PMC1490049  PMID: 15836549
ACGME; resident research; medical education; national survey
16.  Use of a Structured Template to Facilitate Practice-Based Learning and Improvement Projects 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires residency programs to meet and demonstrate outcomes across 6 competencies. Measuring residents' competency in practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI) is particularly challenging.
Purpose
We developed an educational tool to meet ACGME requirements for PBLI. The PBLI template helped programs document quality improvement (QI) projects and supported increased scholarly activity surrounding PBLI learning.
Methods
We reviewed program requirements for 43 residency and fellowship programs and identified specific PBLI requirements for QI activities. We also examined ACGME Program Information Form responses on PBLI core competency questions surrounding QI projects for program sites visited in 2008–2009. Data were integrated by a multidisciplinary committee to develop a peer-protected PBLI template guiding programs through process, documentation, and evaluation of QI projects. All steps were reviewed and approved through our GME Committee structure.
Results
An electronic template, companion checklist, and evaluation form were developed using identified project characteristics to guide programs through the PBLI process and facilitate documentation and evaluation of the process. During a 24 month period, 27 programs have completed PBLI projects, and 15 have reviewed the template with their education committees, but have not initiated projects using the template.
Discussion
The development of the tool generated program leaders' support because the tool enhanced the ability to meet program-specific objectives. The peer-protected status of this document for confidentiality and from discovery has been beneficial for program usage. The document aggregates data on PBLI and QI initiatives, offers opportunities to increase scholarship in QI, and meets the ACGME goal of linking measures to outcomes important to meeting accreditation requirements at the program and institutional level.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00195.1
PMCID: PMC3399615  PMID: 23730444
17.  Education in Professionalism: Results from a Survey of Pediatric Residency Program Directors 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires pediatric residency programs to teach professionalism but does not provide concrete guidance for fulfilling these requirements. Individual programs, therefore, adopt their own methods for teaching and evaluating professionalism, and published research demonstrating how to satisfy the ACGME professionalism requirement is lacking.
Methods
We surveyed pediatric residency program directors in 2008 to explore the establishment of expectations for professional conduct, the educational experiences used to foster learning in professionalism, and the evaluation of professionalism.
Results
Surveys were completed by 96 of 189 program directors (51%). A majority reported that new interns attend a session during which expectations for professionalism are conveyed, either verbally (93%) or in writing (65%). However, most program directors reported that “None or Few” of their residents engaged in multiple educational experiences that could foster learning in professionalism. Despite the identification of professionalism as a core competency, a minority (28%) of programs had a written curriculum in ethics or professionalism. When evaluating professionalism, the most frequently used assessment strategies were rated as “very useful” by only a modest proportion (26%–54%) of respondents.
Conclusions
Few programs have written curricula in professionalism, and opportunities for experiential learning in professionalism may be limited. In addition, program directors express only moderate satisfaction with current strategies for evaluating professionalism that were available through 2008.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00110.1
PMCID: PMC3312515  PMID: 23451317
18.  Providing competency-based family medicine residency training in substance abuse in the new millennium: a model curriculum 
BMC Medical Education  2010;10:33.
Background
This article, developed for the Betty Ford Institute Consensus Conference on Graduate Medical Education (December, 2008), presents a model curriculum for Family Medicine residency training in substance abuse.
Methods
The authors reviewed reports of past Family Medicine curriculum development efforts, previously-identified barriers to education in high risk substance use, approaches to overcoming these barriers, and current training guidelines of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and their Family Medicine Residency Review Committee. A proposed eight-module curriculum was developed, based on substance abuse competencies defined by Project MAINSTREAM and linked to core competencies defined by the ACGME. The curriculum provides basic training in high risk substance use to all residents, while also addressing current training challenges presented by U.S. work hour regulations, increasing international diversity of Family Medicine resident trainees, and emerging new primary care practice models.
Results
This paper offers a core curriculum, focused on screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment, which can be adapted by residency programs to meet their individual needs. The curriculum encourages direct observation of residents to ensure that core skills are learned and trains residents with several "new skills" that will expand the basket of substance abuse services they will be equipped to provide as they enter practice.
Conclusions
Broad-based implementation of a comprehensive Family Medicine residency curriculum should increase the ability of family physicians to provide basic substance abuse services in a primary care context. Such efforts should be coupled with faculty development initiatives which ensure that sufficient trained faculty are available to teach these concepts and with efforts by major Family Medicine organizations to implement and enforce residency requirements for substance abuse training.
doi:10.1186/1472-6920-10-33
PMCID: PMC2885404  PMID: 20459842
19.  Cultural Competency Training Requirements in Graduate Medical Education 
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.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-12-00085.1
PMCID: PMC3693685  PMID: 24404264
20.  Meeting Requirements and Changing Culture 
Journal of General Internal Medicine  2004;19(5 Pt 2):492-495.
The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the Residency Review Committee require a competency-based, accessible evaluation system. The paper system at our institution did not meet these demands and suffered from low compliance. A diverse committee of internal medicine faculty, program directors, and house staff designed a new clinical evaluation strategy based on ACGME competencies and utilizing a modular web-based system called ResEval. ResEval more effectively met requirements and provided useful data for program and curriculum development. The system is paperless, allows for evaluations at any time, and produces customized evaluation reports, dramatically improving our ability to analyze evaluation data. The use of this novel system and the inclusion of a robust technology infrastructure, repeated training and e-mail reminders, and program leadership commitment resulted in an increase in clinical skills evaluations performed and a rapid change in the workflow and culture of evaluation at our residency program.
doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30065.x
PMCID: PMC1492338  PMID: 15109310
house staff evaluation; clinical skills assessment; internal medicine residency; Internet; educational measurement
21.  Barriers to Implementing the ACGME Outcome Project: A Systematic Review of Program Director Surveys 
Introduction
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) introduced the Outcome Project in July 2001 to improve the quality of resident education through competency-based learning. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine and explore the perceptions of program directors regarding challenges to implementing the ACGME Outcome Project.
Methods
We used the PubMed and Web of Science databases and bibliographies for English-language articles published between January 1, 2001, and February 17, 2012. Studies were included if they described program directors' opinions on (1) barriers encountered when attempting to implement ACGME competency-based education, and (2) assessment methods that each residency program was using to implement competency-based education. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were screened by 2 researchers. The grading criterion was created by the authors and used to assess the quality of each study.
Results
The survey-based data reported the opinions of 1076 program directors. Barriers that were encountered include: (1) lack of time; (2) lack of faculty support; (3) resistance of residents to the Outcome Project; (4) insufficient funding; (5) perceived low priority for the Outcome Project; (6) inadequate salary incentive; and (7) inadequate knowledge of the competencies. Of the 6 competencies, those pertaining to patient care and medical knowledge received the most responses from program directors and were given highest priority.
Conclusions
The reviewed literature revealed that time and financial constraints were the most important barriers encountered when implementing the ACGME Outcome Project.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00222.1
PMCID: PMC3546570  PMID: 24294417
22.  A Faculty and Resident Development Program to Improve Learning and Teaching Skills 
Objective
To assess the value of a faculty and resident medical education development program.
Study Design
Modules on Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies and evaluation, teaching methods, and Residency Review Committee guidelines were created, beta tested, and installed on a website. Pretests and posttests were developed. Faculty and residents were required to complete the course. At initiation and 6 months after training, residents completed a feedback perception survey. Statistical analysis was performed using Student t test. P < .05 was considered significant.
Results
Forty-nine voluntary faculty members and residents completed the course. The posttest scores on all the ACGME competencies were significantly higher than the pretest scores (P < .05). The results of the residents' survey indicated that the educational development program significantly improved their perceptions of corrective and immediate feedback by faculty.
Conclusion
A formal Internet-based program significantly increases short-term cognitive knowledge about the ACGME competencies among participants and improves trainees' perceptions of the quality of faculty feedback up to 6 months after training.
doi:10.4300/01.01.0021
PMCID: PMC2931193  PMID: 21975719
23.  Instituting systems-based practice and practice-based learning and improvement: a curriculum of inquiry 
Medical Education Online  2013;18:10.3402/meo.v18i0.21612.
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires that training programs integrate system-based practice (SBP) and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI) into internal medicine residency curricula.
Context and setting
We instituted a seminar series and year-long-mentored curriculum designed to engage internal medicine residents in these competencies.
Methods
Residents participate in a seminar series that includes assigned reading and structured discussion with faculty who assist in the development of quality improvement or research projects. Residents pursue projects over the remainder of the year. Monthly works in progress meetings, protected time for inquiry, and continued faculty mentorship guide the residents in their project development. Trainees present their work at hospital-wide grand rounds at the end of the academic year. We performed a survey of residents to assess their self-reported knowledge, attitudes and skills in SBP and PBLI. In addition, blinded faculty scored projects for appropriateness, impact, and feasibility.
Outcomes
We measured resident self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and skills at the end of the academic year. We found evidence that participants improved their understanding of the context in which they were practicing, and that their ability to engage in quality improvement projects increased. Blinded faculty reviewers favorably ranked the projects’ feasibility, impact, and appropriateness. The ‘Curriculum of Inquiry’ generated 11 quality improvement and research projects during the study period. Barriers to the ongoing work include a limited supply of mentors and delays due to Institutional Review Board approval. Hospital leadership recognizes the importance of the curriculum, and our accreditation manager now cites our ongoing work.
Conclusions
A structured residency-based curriculum facilitates resident demonstration of SBP and practice-based learning and improvement. Residents gain knowledge and skills though this enterprise and hospitals gain access to trainees who help to solve ongoing problems and meet accreditation requirements.
doi:10.3402/meo.v18i0.21612
PMCID: PMC3776321  PMID: 24044686
graduate medical education; competencies; longitudinal curriculum
24.  Predicting performance using background characteristics of international medical graduates in an inner-city university-affiliated Internal Medicine residency training program 
Background
IMGs constitute about a third of the United States (US) internal medicine graduates. US residency training programs face challenges in selection of IMGs with varied background features. However data on this topic is limited. We analyzed whether any pre-selection characteristics of IMG residents in our internal medicine program are associated with selected outcomes, namely competency based evaluation, examination performance and success in acquiring fellowship positions after graduation.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective study of 51 IMGs at our ACGME accredited teaching institution between 2004 and 2007. Background resident features namely age, gender, self-reported ethnicity, time between medical school graduation to residency (pre-hire time), USMLE step I & II clinical skills scores, pre-GME clinical experience, US externship and interest in pursuing fellowship after graduation expressed in their personal statements were noted. Data on competency-based evaluations, in-service exam scores, research presentation and publications, fellowship pursuance were collected. There were no fellowships offered in our hospital in this study period. Background features were compared between resident groups according to following outcomes: (a) annual aggregate graduate PGY-level specific competency-based evaluation (CBE) score above versus below the median score within our program (scoring scale of 1 – 10), (b) US graduate PGY-level specific resident in-training exam (ITE) score higher versus lower than the median score, and (c) those who succeeded to secure a fellowship within the study period. Using appropriate statistical tests & adjusted regression analysis, odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
Results
94% of the study sample were IMGs; median age was 35 years (Inter-Quartile range 25th – 75th percentile (IQR): 33–37 years); 43% women and 59% were Asian physicians. The median pre-hire time was 5 years (IQR: 4–7 years) and USMLE step I & step II clinical skills scores were 85 (IQR: 80–88) & 82 (IQR: 79–87) respectively. The median aggregate CBE scores during training were: PG1 5.8 (IQR: 5.6–6.3); PG2 6.3 (IQR 6–6.8) & PG3 6.7 (IQR: 6.7 – 7.1). 25% of our residents scored consistently above US national median ITE scores in all 3 years of training and 16% pursued a fellowship.
Younger residents had higher aggregate annual CBE score than the program median (p < 0.05). Higher USMLE scores were associated with higher than US median ITE scores, reflecting exam-taking skills. Success in acquiring a fellowship was associated with consistent fellowship interest (p < 0.05) and research publications or presentations (p <0.05). None of the other characteristics including visa status were associated with the outcomes.
Conclusion
Background IMG features namely, age and USMLE scores predict performance evaluation and in-training examination scores during residency training. In addition enhanced research activities during residency training could facilitate fellowship goals among interested IMGs.
doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-42
PMCID: PMC2717068  PMID: 19594918
25.  A Preliminary Report on Resident Emergency Psychiatry Training From a Survey of Psychiatry Chief Residents 
Background
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements stipulate that psychiatry residents need to be educated in the area of emergency psychiatry. Existing research investigating the current state of this training is limited, and no research to date has assessed whether the ACGME Residency Review Committee requirements for psychiatry residency training are followed by psychiatry residency training programs.
Methods
We administered, to chief resident attendees of a national leadership conference, a 24‐item paper survey on the types and amount of emergency psychiatry training provided by their psychiatric residency training programs. Descriptive statistics were used in the analysis.
Results
Of 154 surveys distributed, 111 were returned (72% response rate). Nearly one‐third of chief resident respondents indicated that more than 50% of their program's emergency psychiatry training was provided during on‐call periods. A minority indicated that they were aware of the ACGME program requirements for emergency psychiatry training. While training in emergency psychiatry occurred in many programs through rotations—different from the on‐call period—direct supervision was available during on‐call training only about one‐third of the time.
Conclusions
The findings suggest that about one‐third of psychiatry residency training programs do not adhere to the ACGME standards for emergency psychiatry training. Enhanced knowledge of the ACGME requirements may enhance psychiatry residents' understanding on how their programs are fulfilling the need for more emergency psychiatry training. Alternative settings to the on‐call period for emergency psychiatry training are more likely to provide for direct supervision.
doi:10.4300/JGME-D-10-00056.1
PMCID: PMC3186264  PMID: 22379518

Results 1-25 (984252)