Project description:BACKGROUND: Multisource feedback (MSF) is emerging as a central assessment method for several medical education competencies. Planning and resource requirements for a successful implementation can be significant. Our goal is to examine barriers and challenges to a successful multisite MSF implementation, and identify the benefits of MSF as perceived by participants. METHODS: We analyzed the 2007-2008 field trial implementation of the Assessment of Professional Behaviors, an MSF program of the National Board of Medical Examiners, conducted with 8 residency and fellowship programs at 4 institutions. We use a multimethod analysis that draws on quantitative process indicators and qualitative participant experience data. Process indicators include program attrition, completion of implementation milestones, number of participants at each site, number of MSF surveys assigned and completed, and adherence to an experimental rater training protocol. Qualitative data include communications with each program and semistructured interviews conducted with key field trial staff to elicit their experiences with implementation. RESULTS: Several implementation challenges are identified, including communication gaps and difficulty scheduling implementation and training workshops. Participant interviews indicate several program changes that should enhance feasibility, including increasing communication and streamlining the training process. CONCLUSIONS: Multisource feedback is a complex educational intervention that has the potential to provide users with a better understanding of performance expectations in the graduate medical education environment. Standardization of the implementation processes and tools should reduce the burden on program administrators and participants. Further study is warranted to broaden our understanding of the resource requirements for a successful MSF implementation and to show how outcomes change as MSF gains broader acceptance.
Project description:The German graduate medical education system is going through an important phase of changes. Besides the ongoing reform of the national guidelines for graduate medical education (Musterweiterbildungsordnung), other factors like societal and demographic changes, health and research policy reforms also play a central role for the future and competitiveness of graduate medical education. With this position paper, the committee on graduate medical education of the Society for Medical Education (GMA) would like to point out some central questions for this process and support the current discourse. As an interprofessional and interdisciplinary scientific society, the GMA has the resources to contribute in a meaningful way to an evidence-based and future-oriented graduate medical education strategy. In this position paper, we use four key questions with regards to educational goals, quality assurance, teaching competence and policy requirements to address the core issues for the future of graduate medical education in Germany. The GMA sees its task in contributing to the necessary reform processes as the only German speaking scientific society in the field of medical education.
Project description:BackgroundPromoting residents' wellbeing and decreasing burnout is a focus of Graduate Medical Education (GME). A supportive clinical learning environment is required to optimize residents' wellness and learning.ObjectiveTo determine if longitudinal assessments of burnout and learning environment as perceived by residents combined with applying continuous quality Model for Improvement and serial Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycles to test interventions would improve residents' burnout.MethodsFrom November 2017 to January 2020, 271 GME residents in internal medicine, general surgery, psychiatry, emergency medicine, family medicine and obstetrics and gynecology, were assessed over five cycles by Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), and by clinical learning environment factors (which included personal/social relationships, self-defined burnout, program burnout support, program back-up support, clinical supervision by faculty, and sleep difficulties). The results of the MBI and clinical learning environment factors were observed and analyzed to determine and develop indicated Institutional and individual program interventions using a Plan, Do, Study, Act process with each of the five cycles.ResultsThe response rate was 78.34%. MBI parameters for all GME residents improved over time but were not statistically significant. Residents' positive perception of the clinical supervision by faculty was significantly and independently associated with improved MBI scores, while residents' self-defined burnout; and impaired personal relations perceptions were independently significantly associated with adverse MBI scores on liner regression. For all GME, significant improvements improved over time in residents' perception of impaired personal relationships (p < 0.001), self-defined burnout (p = 0.013), program burn-out support (p = 0.002) and program back-up support (p = 0.028). For the Internal Medicine Residency program, there were statistically significant improvements in all three MBI factors (p < 0.001) and in clinical learning environment measures (p = 0.006 to < 0.001). Interventions introduced during the PDSA cycles included organization-directed interventions (such as: faculty and administrative leadership recruitment, workflow interventions and residents' schedule optimization), and individual interventions (such as: selfcare, mentoring and resilience training).ConclusionIn our study, for all GME residents, clinical learning environment factors in contrast to MBI factors showed significant improvements. Residents' positive perception of the clinical learning environment was associated with improved burnout measures. Residents in separate programs responded differently with one program reaching significance in all MBI and clinical learning environment factors measured. Continuous wellbeing assessment of all GME residents and introduction of Institutional and individual program interventions was accomplished.
Project description:BackgroundDespite the importance of pain management across specialties and the effect of poor management on patients, many physicians are uncomfortable managing pain. This may be related, in part, to deficits in graduate medical education (GME).ObjectiveWe sought to evaluate the methodological rigor of and summarize findings from literature on GME interventions targeting acute and chronic non-cancer pain management.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) to identify studies published before March 2019 that had a focus on non-cancer pain management, majority of GME learners, defined educational intervention, and reported outcome. Quality of design was assessed with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education (NOS-E). One author summarized educational foci and methods.ResultsThe original search yielded 6149 studies; 26 met inclusion criteria. Mean MERSQI score was 11.6 (SD 2.29) of a maximum 18; mean NOS-E score was 2.60 (SD 1.22) out of 6. Most studies employed a single group, pretest-posttest design (n=16, 64%). Outcomes varied: 6 (24%) evaluated reactions (Kirkpatrick level 1), 12 (48%) evaluated learner knowledge (level 2), 5 (20%) evaluated behavior (level 3), and 2 (8%) evaluated patient outcomes (level 4). Interventions commonly focused on chronic pain (n=18, 69%) and employed traditional lectures (n=16, 62%) and case-based learning (n=14, 54%).ConclusionsPain management education research in GME largely evaluated chronic pain management interventions by assessing learner reactions or knowledge at single sites.
Project description: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.
Project description:Background?:Leadership is a critical component of physician competence, yet the best approaches for developing leadership skills for physicians in training remain undefined. Objective?:We systematically reviewed the literature on existing leadership curricula in graduate medical education (GME) to inform leadership program development. Methods?:Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, ERIC, EMBASE, and MedEdPORTAL through October 2015 using search terms to capture GME leadership curricula. Abstracts were reviewed for relevance, and included studies were retrieved for full-text analysis. Article quality was assessed using the Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) index. Results?:A total of 3413 articles met the search criteria, and 52 were included in the analysis. Article quality was low, with 21% (11 of 52) having a BEME score of 4 or 5. Primary care specialties were the most represented (58%, 30 of 52). The majority of programs were open to all residents (81%, 42 of 52). Projects and use of mentors or coaches were components of 46% and 48% of curricula, respectively. Only 40% (21 of 52) were longitudinal throughout training. The most frequent pedagogic methods were lectures, small group activities, and cases. Common topics included teamwork, leadership models, and change management. Evaluation focused on learner satisfaction and self-assessed knowledge. Longitudinal programs were more likely to be successful. Conclusions?:GME leadership curricula are heterogeneous and limited in effectiveness. Small group teaching, project-based learning, mentoring, and coaching were more frequently used in higher-quality studies.
Project description:Background Despite the increased use of telemedicine, the evidence base on virtual supervision in graduate medical education (GME) is not well described. Objective To systematically review the impact of virtual supervision on trainee education, patient care, and patient satisfaction in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited specialties. Methods Two databases (PubMed, EMBASE) were searched from database inception to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed, full-text, English-language articles reporting the use of virtual supervision in GME in ACGME-accredited specialties. Exclusion criteria were studies involving direct supervision, supervisors who were not credentialed physicians, or non-GME trainees. Two investigators independently extracted data and appraised the methodological quality of each study using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The reporting of this systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Results Of 5278 records identified, 26 studies met the eligibility criteria. Virtual supervision was predominantly utilized in operating rooms and inpatient settings, facilitating clinical examinations or surgical procedures through videoconferencing software in specialties such as dermatology, neurosurgery, and orthopedics. However, some studies reported technical challenges that hindered effective teaching and communication. Based on self-reported surveys, supervisor and trainee satisfaction with virtual supervision was mixed, while patient satisfaction with the care was generally high. The MMAT ratings suggested limitations in sampling strategy, outcome measurement, and confounding factors. Conclusions Virtual supervision was applicable to various specialties and settings, facilitating communication between supervisors and trainees, although there were some technological challenges.
Project description:BackgroundTransformative learning (TL) is an educational theory focused on deep fundamental shifts in an individual's worldview. Such shifts are well known to occur within graduate medical education (GME). However, TL in GME has yet to be formally explored.ObjectiveWe performed a scoping review of the literature on TL within GME to identify areas where trainees currently experience or have potential to experience TL, and to explore areas where fostering TL has been used as a pedagogical tool.MethodsIn January 2020, we searched 7 databases to identify literature on TL in GME. Additional articles were identified by hand-searching the Journal of Graduate Medical Education.ResultsA total of 956 articles were identified through database search with 3 unique articles found via hand-searching. Abstracts and manuscripts were screened by 2 authors and disagreements arbitrated by a third, yielding 28 articles for our analysis. The main components of TL (disorienting dilemma, reflection, discourse, action) took various forms. TL was closely linked with professionalism training and professional identity formation. Training programs in primary care fields were most frequently referenced. Often, trainees were experiencing TL without recognition of the theory by their educators. Gaps in the graduate medical education literature exist pertaining to TL in venues such as diversity, equity, and inclusion.ConclusionsOur scoping review uncovered the following themes: TL and professionalism, TL and primary care, and TL by other names. TL is likely occurring but going unrecognized in some settings.