Dataset Information

Curricula for teaching the content of clinical practice guidelines to family medicine and internal medicine residents in the US: a survey study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Teaching the content of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is important to both clinical care and graduate medical education. The objective of this study was to determine the characteristics of curricula for teaching the content of CPGs in family medicine and internal medicine residency programs in the United States.

Methods

We surveyed the directors of family medicine and internal medicine residency programs in the United States. The questionnaire included questions about the characteristics of the teaching of CPGs: goals and objectives, educational activities, evaluation, aspects of CPGs that the program teaches, the methods of making texts of CPGs available to residents, and the major barriers to teaching CPGs.

Results

Of 434 programs responding (out of 839, 52%), 14% percent reported having written goals and objectives related to teaching CPGs. The most frequently taught aspect was the content of specific CPGs (76%). The top two educational strategies used were didactic sessions (76%) and journal clubs (64%). Auditing for adherence by residents was the primary evaluation strategy (44%), although 36% of program directors conducted no evaluation. Programs made texts of CPGs available to residents most commonly in the form of paper copies (54%) while the most important barrier was time constraints on faculty (56%).

Conclusion

Residency programs teach different aspects of CPGs to varying degrees, and the majority uses educational strategies not supported by research evidence.

SUBMITTER: Akl EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2753632 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Curricula for teaching the content of clinical practice guidelines to family medicine and internal medicine residents in the US: a survey study.

Akl Elie A EA Mustafa Reem R Wilson Mark C MC Symons Andrew A Moheet Amir A Rosenthal Thomas T Guyatt Gordon H GH Schünemann Holger J HJ

Implementation science : IS 20090921

<h4>Background</h4>Teaching the content of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is important to both clinical care and graduate medical education. The objective of this study was to determine the characteristics of curricula for teaching the content of CPGs in family medicine and internal medicine residency programs in the United States.<h4>Methods</h4>We surveyed the directors of family medicine and internal medicine residency programs in the United States. The questionnaire included questions a ...[more]

PMID: 19772570

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPain management is a major health care challenge in terms of the significant prevalence of pain and the negative consequences of poor management. Consequently, there have been international calls to improve pain medicine education for medical students. This systematic review examines the literature on pain medicine education at medical schools internationally, with a particular interest in studies that make reference to: a defined pain medicine curriculum, specific pain medicine learning objectives, dedicated pain education modules, core pain topics, medical specialties that teach pain medicine, elective study opportunities, hours allocated to teaching pain medicine during the curriculum, the status of pain medicine in the curriculum (compulsory or optional), as well as teaching, learning, and assessment methods.MethodsA systematic review was undertaken of relevant studies on pain medicine education for medical students published between January 1987 and May 2018 using PubMed, Medline, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Google Scholar, and Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) data bases.ResultsFourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Evaluation of pain medicine curricula has been undertaken at 383 medical schools in Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America (USA), Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), and Europe. Pain medicine was mostly incorporated into medical courses such as anaesthesia or pharmacology, rather than presented as a dedicated pain medicine module. Ninety-six percent of medical schools in the UK and USA, and nearly 80% of medical schools in Europe had no compulsory dedicated teaching in pain medicine. On average, the median number of hours of pain content in the entire curriculum was 20 in Canada (2009), 20 in Australia and New Zealand (2018), 13 in the UK (2011), 12 in Europe (2012/2013), and 11 in the USA (2009). Neurophysiology and pharmacology pain topics were given priority by medical schools in all countries. Lectures, seminars, and case-based instruction were the teaching methods most commonly employed. When it was undertaken, medical schools mostly assessed student competency in pain medicine using written examinations rather than clinical assessments.ConclusionsThis systematic review has revealed that pain medicine education at medical schools internationally does not adequately respond to societal needs in terms of the prevalence and public health impact of inadequately managed pain.

Project description:The objective of pain medicine education is to provide medical students with opportunities to develop their knowledge, skills and professional attitudes that will lead to their becoming safe, capable, and compassionate medical practitioners who are able to meet the healthcare needs of persons in pain. This study was undertaken to identify and describe the delivery of pain medicine education at medical schools in Australia and New Zealand.All 23 medical schools in Australia and New Zealand in 2016 were included in this study. A structured curriculum audit tool was used to obtain information on pain medicine curricula including content, delivery, teaching and assessment methods.Nineteen medical schools (83%) completed the curriculum audit. Neurophysiology, clinical assessment, analgesia use and multidimensional aspects of pain medicine were covered by most medical schools. Specific learning objectives for pain medicine were not identified by 42% of medical schools. One medical school offered a dedicated pain medicine module delivered over 1 week. Pain medicine teaching was delivered at all schools by a number of different departments throughout the curriculum. Interprofessional learning (IPL) in the context of pain medicine education was not specified by any of the medical schools. The mean time allocated for pain medicine teaching over the entire medical course was just under 20 h. The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) was used by 32% of schools to assess knowledge and skills in pain medicine. 16% of schools were unsure of whether any assessment of pain medicine education took place.This descriptive study provides important baseline information for pain medicine education at medical schools in Australia and New Zealand. Medical schools do not have well-documented or comprehensive pain curricula that are delivered and assessed using pedagogically-sound approaches considering the complexity of the topic, the prevalence and public health burden of pain.

Project description:ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted graduate medical education, compelling training programs to abruptly transition to virtual educational formats despite minimal experience or proficiency. We surveyed residents from a national sample of internal medicine (IM) residency programs to describe their experiences with the transition to virtual morning report (MR), a highly valued core educational conference.ObjectiveAssess resident views about virtual MR content and teaching strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignAnonymous, web-based survey.ParticipantsResidents from 14 academically affiliated IM residency programs.Main measuresThe 25-item survey on virtual MR included questions on demographics; frequency and reason for attending; opinions on who should attend and teach; how the virtual format affects the learning environment; how virtual MR compares to in-person MR with regard to participation, engagement, and overall education; and whether virtual MR should continue after in-person conferences can safely resume. The survey included a combination of Likert-style, multiple option, and open-ended questions.ResultsSix hundred fifteen residents (35%) completed the survey, with a balanced sample of interns (39%), second-year (31%), and third-year (30%) residents. When comparing their overall assessment of in-person and virtual MR formats, 42% of residents preferred in-person, 18% preferred virtual, and 40% felt they were equivalent. Most respondents endorsed better peer-engagement, camaraderie, and group participation with in-person MR. Chat boxes, video participation, audience response systems, and smart boards/tablets enhanced respondents' educational experience during virtual MR. Most respondents (72%) felt that the option of virtual MR should continue when it is safe to resume in-person conferences.ConclusionsVirtual MR was a valued alternative to traditional in-person MR during the COVID-19 pandemic. Residents feel that the virtual platform offers unique educational benefits independent of and in conjunction with in-person conferences. Residents support the integration of a virtual platform into the delivery of MR in the future.

Project description:BackgroundSingle-center studies have reported residents experience barriers to accessing supervising physicians overnight, but no national dataset has described barriers perceived by residents or the association between supervision models and perceived barriers.ObjectiveTo explore residents' perception of barriers to accessing overnight supervision.DesignQuestions about overnight supervision and barriers to accessing it were included on the American College of Physicians Internal Medicine In-Training Examination® (IM-ITE®) Resident Survey in Fall 2017.ParticipantsAll US-based internal medicine residents who completed the 2017 IM-ITE®. Responses from 20,744 residents (84%) were analyzed.Main measuresFor our main outcome, we calculated percentages of responses for eight barriers and tested for association with the presence or absence of nocturnists. For our secondary outcome, we categorized free-text responses enumerating barriers from all residents into the five Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) categories to elucidate future areas for study or intervention.Key resultsInternal medicine residents working in hospitals without nocturnists more commonly reported having at least one barrier to accessing a supervising physician "always" or "most of the time" (5075/9842, 51.6%) compared to residents in hospitals with nocturnists (3074/10,902, 28.2%, p < 0.001). Among residents in hospitals without nocturnists, the most frequently reported barrier to accessing attending supervision was attendings not being present in the hospital (30.4% "always" or "most of the time"); residents in hospitals with nocturnists most frequently reported desire to make their own decisions as a barrier to contacting attendings (15.7% "always" or "most of the time"). Free-text responses from residents with and without nocturnists most commonly revealed organization (47%) barriers to accessing supervision; 28% cited person barriers, and 23% cited tools/technology barriers.ConclusionsPresence of nocturnists is associated with fewer reported barriers to contacting supervising physicians overnight. Organizational culture, work schedules, desire for independence, interpersonal interactions, and technology may present important barriers.

Dataset Information

Curricula for teaching the content of clinical practice guidelines to family medicine and internal medicine residents in the US: a survey study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Curricula for teaching the content of clinical practice guidelines to family medicine and internal medicine residents in the US: a survey study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure