Sort by
Motivations for Entrustable Professional Activity Assessment: Gaps Between Curriculum Theory and Resident Reality

Background Previous research demonstrates mixed reactions from residents toward competency-based medical education (CBME), and entrustable professional activities (EPAs) specifically. However, understanding what motivates residents to obtain EPAs may be vital to the longevity of CBME, given the emphasis on assessment for learning under this paradigm. Objective This study explored resident perspectives across 3 domains: motivation for obtaining EPAs, perceived importance of EPAs, and overall thoughts on CBME curriculum. Methods This was a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study involving 2 phases of data collection. Phase 1 was semi-structured interviews with residents enrolled in CBME at one Canadian institution from November 2019 to July 2020. Analyses included thematic and manifest content analysis. Phase 2 was an electronic close-ended survey to capture residents’ primary motivation for requesting EPAs and importance of EPAs for learning. Survey data were analyzed descriptively. Results Of 120 eligible residents, 25 (21%) and 107 (89%) participated in the interview and survey, respectively. Program requirement was the dominant motivation for obtaining EPAs. There was variability in perceived importance of EPAs on learning. Increased resident workload, gaming the system to maximize EPA scores, and lack of shared ownership from preceptors were cited as critiques of the curriculum. Survey responses corroborated interview findings. Conclusions Although many residents recognize the value of EPAs, the majority are not intrinsically motivated to seek out assessment under the current CBME framework.

Open Access
Relevant
A Qualitative Study of Internal Medicine Subspecialty Fellowship Program Directors’ Perspectives on Short-Term Hospitalist Employment Prior to Fellowship

Background Some internal medicine (IM) residents pursuing subspecialty training choose short-term hospitalist employment prior to fellowship, or “pre-fellowship hospitalist years.” Residency and fellowship program directors (PDs) advise residents on this decision, but PD experience with fellows pursuing pre-fellowship hospitalist years and the impact on fellowship applications is unknown. Objective We aimed to explore perceptions of fellowship PDs regarding experience with fellows who pursued pre-fellowship hospitalist years, including perceived effects on how such years affect fellowship application candidacy. Methods A purposive sample of 20 fellowship PDs in the most highly competitive and commonly selected IM fellowships (cardiology, pulmonology/critical care medicine, hematology/oncology, gastroenterology) from 5 academic institutions were approached for participation in fall 2021. Interviews included semi-structured questions about pre-fellowship hospitalist employment. Utilizing rapid qualitative analysis, interview transcripts were summarized and reviewed to identify themes and subthemes describing fellowship PDs’ perspectives of pre-fellowship hospitalist years. Results Sixteen fellowship PDs (80%) participated. PDs identified 4 major themes as important for trainees considering pre-fellowship hospitalist years: (1) Explain the “Why”—why the year was pursued; (2) Characteristics of the Hospitalist Position—what type of employment; (3) The Challenges—potential concerns faced with pre-fellowship hospitalist years; and (4) Describe the “What”—the experience’s contribution to resident professional development. Conclusions Fellowship PDs in 4 competitive IM subspecialities placed a strong emphasis on explaining a clear, logical reason for seeking short-term hospitalist employment prior to fellowship, describing how it fits into the overall career trajectory, and selecting activities that demonstrate continued commitment to the subspecialty.

Open Access
Relevant
Use of an Opt-Out vs Opt-In Strategy Increases Use of Residency Mental Health Services

Background Residents report high levels of distress but low utilization of mental health services. Prior research has shown several barriers that prevent residents from opting into available mental health services. Objective To determine the impact of a mental health initiative centered around an opt-out versus an opt-in approach to help-seeking, on the use of psychotherapy. Methods Resident use of psychotherapy was compared between 2 time frames. During the first time frame (July 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021), residents were offered access to therapy that they could self-initiate by calling to schedule an appointment (opt-in). The second time frame (February 1, 2021 to April 30, 2021) involved the switch to an opt-out structure, during which the same residents were scheduled for a session but could choose to cancel. Additional changes were implemented to reduce stigma and minimize barriers. The outcome was psychotherapy use by residents. Results Of the 114 residents, 7 (6%) self-initiated therapy during the opt-in period. When these same residents were placed in an opt-out context, 59 of the remaining 107 residents (55%) kept their initial appointment, and 23 (39%) self-initiated additional sessions. Altogether, across both phases, a total of 30 of the 114 residents initiated therapy (ie, 7 during the opt-in and 23 during the opt-out). The differences in therapy use between the 2 phases are statistically significant (P<.001 by McNemar’s test). Conclusions There was a substantial increase in residents’ use of psychotherapy after the opt-out initiative that included efforts to reduce stigma and encourage mental health services.

Open Access
Relevant
Evidence-Based Practices for Interviewing Graduate Medical Education Applicants: A Systematic Review

Background Although the selection interview is a standard admission practice for graduate medical education (GME) programs in the United States, there is a dearth of recent reviews on optimizing the trainee interview process, which has low reliability, high cost, and major risk of bias. Objective To investigate the evidence base for different selection interview practices in GME. Methods We searched 4 literature databases from inception through September 2022. Two investigators independently conducted title/abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and quality assessment. Disagreements were mediated by discussion. We used backward reference searching of included articles to identify additional studies. We included studies of different interview methods and excluded literature reviews, non-GME related publications, and studies comparing different applicant populations. We examined study characteristics, applicant and interviewer preferences, and interview format. We evaluated study quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results Of 2192 studies, 39 (2%) met our inclusion criteria. The evidence base was rated as moderately low quality using MERSQI criteria. Applicants reported preferences for several one-on-one interviews lasting 15 to 20 minutes, interviews by current trainees, and interviews including social events with only trainees. Applicants had mixed perceptions of virtual versus in-person interviews and reported that virtual interviews saved costs. The multiple mini interview (MMI) required more applicant and interviewer time than individual interviews but demonstrated construct and predictive validity and was preferred by applicants and interviewers. Conclusions Based on moderately low-quality evidence, using the MMI, training interviewers, and providing applicants with basic program information in advance should be considered for GME selection interviews.

Open Access
Relevant