Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors Research Articles

How Are We Teaching Advocacy? A National Survey of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors.

Although internal medicine (IM) physicians accept publicadvocacy as a professional responsibility, there is little evidence that IM training programs teach advocacy skills. The prevalence and characteristics of publicadvocacy curricula in US IM residency programs are unknown. To describe the prevalence and characteristics of curricula in US IM residencies addressing public advocacy for communities and populations; to describe barriers to the provision of such curricula. Nationally representative, web-based, cross-sectional survey of IM residency program directors with membership in an academic professional association. A total of 276 IM residency program directors (61%) responded between August and December 2022. Percentage of US IM residency programs that teach advocacy curricula; characteristics of advocacy curricula; perceptions of barriers to teaching advocacy. More than half of respondents reported that their programs offer no advocacy curricula (148/276, 53.6%). Ninety-five programs (95/276, 34.4%) reported required advocacy curricula; 33 programs (33/276, 12%) provided curricula as elective only. The content, structure, and teaching methods of advocacy curricula in IM programs were heterogeneous; experiential learning in required curricula was low (23/95, 24.2%) compared to that in elective curricula (51/65, 78.5%). The most highly reported barriers to implementing or improving upon advocacy curricula (multiple responses allowed) were lack of faculty expertise in advocacy (200/276, 72%), inadequate faculty time (190/276, 69%), and limited curricular flexibility (148/276,54%). Over half of US IM residency programs offer no formal training in public advocacy skills and many reported lack of faculty expertise in public advocacy as a barrier. These findings suggest many IM residents are not taught how to advocate for communities and populations. Further, less than one-quarter of required curricula in public advocacy involves experiential learning.

Internal Medicine Residency Program Director Awareness and Mitigation of Residents’ Experiences of Bias and Discrimination

Internal Medicine Residency Program Director Awareness and Mitigation of Residents’ Experiences of Bias and Discrimination

Nephrologists as Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors: Trends From a National Survey

Nephrologists as Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors: Trends From a National Survey

Nighttime Resident Supervision and Education: Results of a National Survey of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors

Nighttime Resident Supervision and Education: Results of a National Survey of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors

Internal Medicine Residency Program Director Support and Burnout During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of a National Survey.

Burnout is common among physicians and physician leaders, including residency program directors (PDs). The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and other stressors in 2020 on PDs is unknown. To measure the prevalence of burnout among internal medicine (IM) residency PDs 6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 429 IM PDs, representing 83% of accredited residency programs, were surveyed from August to December 2020. Burnout, using a 2-item screening tool, and self-reported consideration of resigning in 2020, were compared to their annual prevalence since 2012 and tested for possible associations with pandemic stressors and program characteristics. The survey response rate was 61.5% (264 of 429). One-third (33.6%, 87 of 259) of PD respondents met burnout criteria, and 45.1% (110 of 244) reported considering resigning in the past year, which were within the range of preceding years. PDs who reported feeling highly supported by institutional leadership were less likely to meet burnout criteria and to have considered resigning. There were no associations between burnout or consideration of resigning and the amount of clinical time PDs spent in their roles, duration of maximum stress on programs, budget cuts to programs, or geographic region. The prevalence of burnout among PDs in fall 2020 was similar to the prevalence of burnout in pre-pandemic years despite uniquely extreme stressors. PDs' perception of being highly supported by institutional leadership was associated with lower prevalence of burnout and consideration of resigning. Perceived leadership support may be a protective factor against burnout during periods of high stress.

Palliative care training: a national study of internal medicine residency program directors in the United Arab Emirates

BackgroundInternal medicine residents are responsible for providing much of the direct care for palliative and terminally ill patients in teaching hospitals in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). To date, little systematic information is available on the prevalence of palliative care (PC) programs or faculty in UAE academic hospitals, or on the nature of PC education in internal medicine residency programs in the country.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with program directors of all 7 internal medicine residency programs in the UAE. Qualitative content analysis was conducted to identify recurring themes.ResultsAll program directors agreed that PC knowledge and skills are an essential component of training for internal medicine residents, but have had variable success in implementing the components. Three themes emerged, namely lack of structured PC training, perceptions of resident preparedness, and barriers to implementing a PC curriculum.ConclusionInternal medicine residency programs in the UAE currently lack structured, mandatory PC curricula and have limited opportunities for formal teaching and assessment of PC knowledge and skills. The planned development of comprehensive oncology and palliative care centers and ongoing curricular reform in teaching hospitals in the country will provide important opportunities to train a cadre of competent health professionals to provide high quality palliative and end-of-life care to UAE patients and their families.

Virtual Recruitment: Experiences and Perspectives of Internal Medicine Program Directors

Virtual Recruitment: Experiences and Perspectives of Internal Medicine Program Directors

Perspectives of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors on the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Diversity Standards.

To 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. To explore the perspectives of internal medicine program directors (PDs) and associate program directors (APDs) on the ACGME diversity standard. Qualitative study of internal medicine residency program leadership from academic and community programs across the USA. Current PDs (n = 12) and APDs (n = 8) of accredited US internal medicine residency programs. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews. Data was analyzed using the constant comparative method to extract recurrent themes. Three 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. Our 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.

A comparison of orthopaedic surgery and internal\xa0medicine perceptions of USMLE Step 1 pass/fail scoring

BackgroundUnited States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 will transition from numeric grading to pass/fail, sometime after January 2022. The aim of this study was to compare how program directors in orthopaedics and internal medicine perceive a pass/fail Step 1 will impact the residency application process.MethodsA 27-item survey was distributed through REDCap to 161 U.S. orthopaedic residency program directors and 548 U.S. internal medicine residency program directors. Program director emails were obtained from the American Medical Association’s Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database.ResultsWe received 58 (36.0%) orthopaedic and 125 (22.8%) internal medicine program director responses. The majority of both groups disagree with the change to pass/fail, and felt that the decision was not transparent. Both groups believe that the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam and clerkship grades will take on more importance. Compared to internal medicine PDs, orthopaedic PDs were significantly more likely to emphasize research, letters of recommendation from known faculty, Alpha Omega Alpha membership, leadership/extracurricular activities, audition elective rotations, and personal knowledge of the applicant. Both groups believe that allopathic students from less prestigious medical schools, osteopathic students, and international medical graduates will be disadvantaged. Orthopaedic and internal medicine program directors agree that medical schools should adopt a graded pre-clinical curriculum, and that there should be a cap on the number of residency applications a student can submit.ConclusionOrthopaedic and internal medicine program directors disagree with the change of Step 1 to pass/fail. They also believe that this transition will make the match process more difficult, and disadvantage students from less highly-regarded medical schools. Both groups will rely more heavily on the Step 2 clinical knowledge exam score, but orthopaedics will place more importance on research, letters of recommendation, Alpha Omega Alpha membership, leadership/extracurricular activities, personal knowledge of the applicant, and audition electives.

Internal medicine residency program director perceptions of USMLE Step 1 pass/fail scoring: A cross-sectional survey.

The United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 will transition to a pass/fail exam starting no earlier than January 2022. Internal medicine residency programs will need to adapt to these changes. The purpose of this study was to investigate:1. internal medicine residency program directors’ perceptions on the change of Step 1 to a pass/fail exam, and2. the impact on other factors considered for internal medicine residency selection.A validated REDCap survey was sent to 548 program directors at active Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education internal medicine residency programs. Contact information from the American Medical Association's Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database was used.The survey had 123 respondents (22.4%). Most internal medicine program directors do not support the pass/fail change. A greater importance will be placed on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam, personal knowledge of the applicant, clerkship grades, and audition electives. Allopathic students from less highly regarded medical schools, as well as osteopathic and international students, will be disadvantaged. About half believe that schools should adopt a graded pre-clinical curriculum (51.2%) and that there should be residency application caps (54.5%).Internal medicine program directors mostly disagree with the pass/fail Step 1 transition. Residency programs will need to reevaluate how applicants are evaluated. Other factors, such as Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score, personal knowledge of the applicant, grades in clerkships, and audition rotations will now be emphasized more heavily.

Anticoagulation for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and End-Stage Renal Disease on Dialysis: A National Survey

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a significant increased risk of embolic stroke. Patients with end-stage renal disease who are on dialysis have an increased risk of both embolic stroke and bleeding. Stroke-prevention studies with the use of anticoagulation for AF patients have excluded patients on dialysis, so there remains no consensus on their management. We developed and implemented a pan-Canadian multidisciplinary survey to explore the current beliefs and practices concerning patients with AF on dialysis. We developed an online investigator-designed survey with both quantitative and qualitative responses with the use of a secure university-affiliated electronic service. The survey was distributed to physicians via the QxMD platform and directly to internal medicine, cardiology, and nephrology residency program directors for distribution to faculty members. 130 participants responded, including 46 cardiologists, 45 nephrologists, 30 general internists, and 9 other physicians. The preferred anticoagulant was warfarin. The CHADS2 score used to initiate anticoagulation was highly variable, with specialties differing in use of a CHADS2 threshold of ≥ 1 (P < 0.001) and the impact of previous transient ischemic attack/stroke (P = 0.02). Calciphylaxis history affected the decision to prescribe anticoagulation. Specialties differed in thresholds used to consider direct oral anticoagulants for dialysis patients, with nephrologists more likely to prescribe anticoagulation at higher CHADS2 scores. Our survey demonstrated significant heterogeneity of anticoagulation use for stroke prevention in patients with AF on dialysis. Physician specialty and patient risk profiles contributed to the observed variability. This study reemphasises the need for clinical trials, large observational studies, and consensus guidelines to address evident equipoise.

Using the Jigsaw Teaching Method to Enhance Internal Medicine Residents' Knowledge and Attitudes in Managing Geriatric Women's Health.

IntroductionAlthough studies surveying internal medicine (IM) residency program directors identify geriatric women's health as an essential curriculum topic, there are limited published women's health curricula for IM residents. Our IM residency program performed a needs assessment, which revealed that the majority of residents were unsatisfied with our current curricula and most were not confident managing geriatric women's health. We developed and assessed a structured curriculum to improve IM residents’ knowledge and confidence in addressing geriatric women's health.MethodsThis 2-hour interactive workshop used the jigsaw teaching method (a cooperative learning strategy where peers deliver specific content in teams) to teach 84 categorical IM residents of all PGY levels about the diagnosis and management of menopause, osteoporosis, urinary incontinence, and abnormal uterine bleeding. Participants completed a pretest and immediate posttest to assess knowledge and confidence about the targeted topics. We compared baseline and postworkshop responses using chi-square and Wilcoxon signed rank tests.ResultsSeventy-four (88%) IM residents completed the pretest, and 62 (74%) completed the posttest. Mean knowledge scores improved from 51% to 69% (p < .0001). Residents who reported feeling somewhat confident or confident in addressing women's health topics increased from 14% to 44% (p < .0001). The majority were satisfied or very satisfied with the workshop (94%) and requested additional women's health education (92%).DiscussionOur results suggest that workshops using the jigsaw teaching method can effectively increase IM resident knowledge and confidence in managing geriatric women's health.

Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors' Screening Practices and Perceptions About Recruitment Challenges.

To examine internal medicine residency program directors' (PDs') screening practices and perceptions about current recruitment challenges. In March-May 2017, the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine Survey Committee sent a survey to 373 Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine member residency programs. PDs rated the importance of 23 inclusion and 11 exclusion criteria for interview invitation decision making, provided United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) cutoff scores for U.S. medical school and international medical graduates, and indicated changes in recruitment practices due to application inflation, including their ability to conduct holistic review and interest in potential solutions to address application inflation. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify and confirm factors that were most important to interview invitation decision making. The response rate for eligible programs was 64% (233/363). USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores were the criteria most frequently reported to be "very important" (131/233, 57%). Among respondents who reported any criteria as "very important," 155/222 (70%) identified a single most important (SMI) criterion. Non-USMLE criteria were frequently reported as an SMI criterion (68%). Concerning exclusion criteria, 157/231 (68%) reported they "absolutely would not invite" applicants with hints of unprofessional behavior. Of the 214/232 (92%) who reported an increase in applications, 138 (64%) adjusted recruitment practices. Respondents were most interested in limiting the number of applications per applicant (163/231, 71%), allowing applicants to indicate high interest in a subset of programs (151/229, 66%), and creating a national database of qualities of matched applicants for each program (121/228, 53%). PDs rely heavily on USMLE scores when making interview invitation decisions. However, collectively, non-USMLE criteria were more frequently reported as an SMI criterion. Most programs adjusted recruitment practices to respond to application volume. Several potential solutions to address application inflation garnered wide support.

Using Team Census Caps to Optimize Education, Patient Care, and Wellness: A Survey of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors.

To discover whether internal medicine (IM) residency program directors use lower-than-required caps on general medicine wards, critical care units, and inpatient subspecialty wards; describe justifications for lower-than-required general medicine ward caps and strategies for when caps have been exceeded or the number of patients is a detriment to critical thinking or education; and assess whether caps were associated with program characteristics. From August to December 2016, the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine surveyed all member program directors about team caps and their effects on the learning environment. Responses were appended with publicly available or licensed third-party data. Programs were categorized by type, size, and region. Overall response rate was 65.7% (251/382 programs). Nearly all (244/248; 98.4%) reported caps for general medicine ward teams (mean = 17.0 [standard deviation (SD) = 4.2]). Fewer (171/247; 69.2%) had caps for critical care teams (mean = 13.8 [SD = 5.4]). Fewer still (131/225; 58.2%) had caps for inpatient subspecialty ward teams (mean = 14.8 [SD = 6.0]). Fewer first-quartile programs (0-28 residents) reported having caps on inpatient subspecialty teams (P < .001). Directors reported higher caps compromised education (109/130; 83.8%), patient care (89/130; 68.5%), and/or resident wellness (77/130; 59.2%). Nonteaching services (181/249; 72.7%), patient transfers (110/249; 44.2%), or "backup" residents (67/249; 26.9%) were used when caps are reached or the number of patients is detrimental to critical thinking or education. IM program directors frequently exercise discretion when setting caps. Accrediting bodies should explicitly encourage such adjustments and allow differentiation by setting.

An interview with Sir William Osler on resident work hours and physician responsibility in the 21st century

Since 2003, duty hour regulations (DHRs) imposed by the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) have been a controversial issue in the medical community. The conflict touches upon the ethical principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and the activities of every physician. However, the controversy concerning DHR presents opportunities for reevaluating a physician’s roles, responsibilities, and work-life balance in the 21st century. In this article, the DHR controversy is discussed through the thoughts and ideas of Sir William Osler using an interview format. An internal medicine residency program director adds comments to this discussion based on his understanding of current ACGME regulations.

Internal Medicine Residency Program Director Burnout and Program Director Turnover: Results of a National Survey

Internal Medicine Residency Program Director Burnout and Program Director Turnover: Results of a National Survey

Intensive Care Unit Rotations and Predictors of Career Choice in Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine: A Survey of Internal Medicine Residency Directors.

Background The United States (US) is experiencing a growing shortage of critical care medicine (CCM) trained physicians. Little is known about the exposures to CCM experienced by internal medicine (IM) residents or factors that may influence their decision to pursue a career in pulmonary/critical care medicine (PCCM). Methods We conducted a survey of US IM residency program directors (PDs) and then used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors that were predictive of residency programs with a higher percentage of graduates pursuing careers in PCCM. Results Of the 249 PDs contacted, 107 (43%) completed our survey. University-sponsored programs more commonly had large ICUs (62.3% versus 42.2%, p=0.05), primary medical ICUs (63.9% versus 41.3%, p=0.03), and closed staffing models (88.5% versus 41.3%, p < 0.001). Residents from university-sponsored programs were more likely to pursue specialty fellowship training (p < 0.001) overall but equally likely to pursue careers in PCCM as those from community-sponsored programs. Factors predictive of residencies with a higher percentage of graduates pursuing training in PCCM included larger ICUs (>20 beds), residents serving as code leaders, and greater proportion of graduates pursuing specialization. Conclusions While numerous differences exist between the ICU rotations at community- and university-sponsored IM residencies, the percentage of graduates specializing in PCCM was similar. Exposure to larger ICUs, serving as code leaders, and higher rates of specialization were predictive of a career choice in PCCM.

US Internal Medicine Program Director Perceptions of Alignment of Graduate Medical Education and Institutional Resources for Engaging Residents in Quality and Safety.

Alignment between institutions and graduate medical education (GME) regarding quality and safety initiatives (QI) has not been measured. The objective was to determine US internal medicine residency program directors' (IM PDs) perceived resourcing for QI and alignment between GME and their institutions. A national survey of IM PDs was conducted in the Fall of 2013. Multivariable linear regression was used to test association between a novel Integration Score (IS) measuring alignment between GME and the institution via PD perceptions. The response rate was 72.6% (265/365). According to PDs, residents were highly engaged in QI (82%), but adequate funding (14%) and support personnel (37% to 61%) were lower. Higher IS correlated to reports of funding for QI (76.3% vs 54.5%, P = .012), QI personnel (67.3% vs 41.1%, P < .001), research experts (70.5% vs 50.0%, P < .001), and computer experts (69.0% vs 45.8%, P < .001) for QI assistance. Apparent mismatch between GME and institutional resources exists, and the IS may be useful in measuring GME-institutional leadership alignment in QI.

Problematic communications during 2016 fellowship recruitment in internal medicine

ABSTRACTSome internal medicine residency program directors have expressed concerns that their third-year residents may have been subjected to inappropriate communication during the 2016 fellowship recruitment season. The authors sought to study applicants’ interpersonal communication experiences with fellowship programs. Many respondents indicated that they had been asked questions that would constitute violations of the National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) Communications Code of Conduct agreement, including how they plan to rank specific programs. Moreover, female respondents were more likely to have been asked questions during interview experiences about other programs to which they applied, and about their family plans. Post-interview communication policies were not made clear to most applicants. These results suggest ongoing challenges for the internal medicine community to improve communication with applicants and uniform compliance with the NRMP communications code of conduct during the fellowship recruitment process.

Use of Unit-Based Interventions to Improve the Quality of Care for Hospitalized Medical Patients: A National Survey

Recent publications have drawn attention to interventions to redesign aspects of care delivery for hospitalized medical patients, including localization of physicians to specific units, nurse-physician co-leadership, interdisciplinary rounds (IDR), and access to quality performance data. Use of these interventions across hospitals has not been previously described. A cross-sectional survey of internal medicine (IM) residency program directors and hospital medicine group (HMG) leaders in the United States was conducted to characterize use of unit-based interventions on inpatient medical services. The survey served as a pilot study to assess the use of localization of physicians to specific units, nurse-physician co-leadership, IDR, and access to quality performance data. Ninety-four IM program directors (response rate, 23.3%) and 62 HMG leaders (response rate, 20.7%) responded. No single intervention was used by the vast majority of sites, and the extent and intensity of use varied. About a quarter of respondents indicated that physicians typically cared for patients on only one to two units, a third or fewer had unit co-leadership on at least half of hospital units, fewer than half had daily IDR, and approximately half had access to unit-level performance data. Most IM programs and hospitalist groups had implemented 0 to 1 interventions to a high degree of fidelity, and few (≤ 5%) had implemented all 4. IM program directors and HMG leaders reported variation in use of unit-based interventions to improve quality of care for medical inpatients. Future research should evaluate the association of the degree and intensity of using unit-based interventions on patient outcomes.