Dataset Information

Internal Medicine Residents' Perceived Responsibility for Patients at Hospital Discharge: A National Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Medical residents are routinely entrusted with transitions of care, yet little is known about the duration or content of their perceived responsibility for patients they discharge from the hospital.

Objective

To examine the duration and content of internal medicine residents' perceived responsibility for patients they discharge from the hospital. The secondary objective was to determine whether specific individual experiences and characteristics correlate with perceived responsibility.

Design

Multi-site, cross-sectional 24-question survey delivered via email or paper-based form.

Participants

Internal medicine residents (post-graduate years 1-3) at nine university and community-based internal medicine training programs in the United States.

Main measures

Perceived responsibility for patients after discharge as measured by a previously developed single-item tool for duration of responsibility and novel domain-specific questions assessing attitudes towards specific transition of care behaviors.

Key results

Of 817 residents surveyed, 469 responded (57.4 %). One quarter of residents (26.1 %) indicated that their responsibility for patients ended at discharge, while 19.3 % reported perceived responsibility extending beyond 2 weeks. Perceived duration of responsibility did not correlate with level of training (P = 0.57), program type (P = 0.28), career path (P = 0.12), or presence of burnout (P = 0.59). The majority of residents indicated they were responsible for six of eight transitional care tasks (85.1-99.3 % strongly agree or agree). Approximately half of residents (57 %) indicated that it was their responsibility to directly contact patients' primary care providers at discharge. and 21.6 % indicated that it was their responsibility to ensure that patients attended their follow-up appointments.

Conclusions

Internal medicine residents demonstrate variability in perceived duration of responsibility for recently discharged patients. Neither the duration nor the content of residents' perceived responsibility was consistently associated with level of training, program type, career path, or burnout, suggesting there may be unmeasured factors such as professional role modeling that shape these perceptions.

SUBMITTER: Young E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5130960 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSafely and effectively discharging a patient from the hospital requires working within a multidisciplinary team. However, little is known about how perceptions of responsibility among the team impact discharge communication practices.ObjectiveOur study attempts to understand residents' perceptions of who is primarily responsible for discharge education, how these perceptions affect their own reported communication with patients, and how residents envision improving multidisciplinary communication around discharges.DesignA multi-institutional cross-sectional survey.ParticipantsInternal medicine (IM) residents from seven US residency programs at academic medical centers were invited to participate between March and May 2019, via email of an electronic link to the survey.Main measuresData collected included resident perception of who on the multidisciplinary team is primarily responsible for discharge communication, their own reported discharge communication practices, and open-ended comments on ways discharge multidisciplinary team communication could be improved.Key resultsOf the 613 resident responses (63% response rate), 35% reported they were unsure which member of the multidisciplinary team is primarily responsible for discharge education. Residents who believed it was either the intern's or the resident's primary responsibility had 4.28 (95% CI, 2.51-7.30) and 3.01 (95% CI, 1.66-5.71) times the odds, respectively, of reporting doing discharge communication practices frequently compared to those who were not sure who was primarily responsible. To improve multidisciplinary discharge communication, residents called for the following among team members: (1) clarifying roles and responsibilities for communication with patients, (2) setting expectations for communication among multidisciplinary team members, and (3) redefining culture around discharges.ConclusionsResidents report a lack of understanding of who is responsible for discharge education. This diffusion of ownership impacts how much residents invest in patient education, with more perceived responsibility associated with more frequent discharge communication.

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.

Project description:BackgroundInterest in nephrology has been declining among internal medicine residents but the reasons behind this observation are not well characterized. Our objective was to evaluate factors influencing residents' choice of subspecialty.MethodsThis is a mixed-method QUAL-QUAN design study that used the results of our previously published qualitative analysis on residents' perception of nephrology to create and pilot a questionnaire of 60 questions. The final questionnaire was distributed to 26 programs across the United States and a total of 1992 residents. We calculated response rates and tabulated participant characteristics and percentage of participant responses. We categorized choice of fellowship into 2 medical categories (Highly Sought After vs. Less Sought After) and fitted a logistic regression model of choosing a highly vs. less sought after fellowship.ResultsFour hundred fifteen out of 1992 (21%) US residents responded to the survey. Of the 268 residents planning to pursue fellowship training, 67 (25%) selected a less sought after fellowship. Female sex was associated with significantly higher odds of selecting a less sought after fellowship (OR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.47, 4.74). Major factors deterring residents from pursuing nephrology were perception of inadequate financial compensation, broad scope of clinical practice and complexity of patient population. We observed a decline in exposure to nephrology during the clinical years of medical school with only 35.4% of respondents rotating in nephrology versus 76.8% in residency. The quality of nephrology education was rated less positively during clinical medical school years (median of 50 on a 0-100 point scale) compared to the pre-clinical years (median 60) and residency (median 75).ConclusionOur study attempts to explain the declining interest in nephrology. Results suggest potential targets for improvement: diversified trainee exposure, sub-specialization of nephrology, and increased involvement of nephrologists in the education of trainees.

Project description:BackgroundFewer trainees are choosing to pursue nephrology. Only 60.1% of positions filled in the 2018 fellowship Match, which is concerning given the rising prevalence of end-stage kidney disease. Identifying factors influential in career choices is critical to inform focused approaches to recruit qualified applicants.MethodsTo understand perceptions of nephrology and assess factors influential in specialty choice among early career trainees, an anonymous survey was distributed to upper-level medical students and internal medicine residents at programs identified through the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) and American Medical Association's Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA).ResultsOf 4199 recipients, 644 (15.3%) participants responded, including 315 upper-level medical students, 308 residents, and three chief residents from 30 institutions. An interest in the subject was the most critical factor in selecting a specialty (92%). Other key factors included a suitable work-life balance (73%), access to mentors (70%), and subject exposure (66%). Lack of interest was the most frequently-cited reason to forgo a nephrology fellowship (79%), followed by concerns regarding remuneration (43%), work-life balance (39%), and subject exposure (32%). In free-text responses, several participants described frustration with managing patients on hemodialysis and desired combined training with specialties such as critical care. Respondents who had considered nephrology at any point cited an interest in physiology or interface with a mentor as key driving factors.ConclusionsA lack of interest in and exposure to the subject, perceptions of poor earning potential and patient nonadherence, and concerns regarding work-life balance were influential in participants' decisions to forgo nephrology training. Incorporating novel educational tools and broadening the scope of the nephrology elective, highlighting ongoing areas of clinical and research innovation, expanding opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration and procedural skills, and cultivating strategies to reduce burnout may be useful areas on which to focus future recruitment efforts.

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.