Dataset Information

Interprofessional Education in the Internal Medicine Clerkship Post-LCME Standard Issuance: Results of a National Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several decades of work have detailed the value and goals of interprofessional education (IPE) within the health professions, defining IPE competencies and best practices. In 2013, the Liaison Committee for Medical Education (LCME) elevated IPE to a U.S. medical school accreditation standard.

Objective

To examine the status of IPE within internal medicine (IM) clerkships including perspectives, curricular content, barriers, and assessment a year after the LCME standard issuance.

Design

Anonymous online survey.

Participants

IM clerkship directors from each of the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine's 121 U.S. and Canadian member medical schools in 2014.

Methods

In 2014, a section on IPE (18 items) was included in the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine annual survey of its 121 U.S. and Canadian member medical schools.

Main measures

Items (18) assessed clerkship director (CD) perspectives, status of IPE curricula in IM clerkships, and barriers to IPE implementation. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis of free-text responses to one of the survey questions.

Key results

The overall survey response rate was 78% (94/121). The majority (88%) agreed that IPE is important to the practice of IM, and 71% believed IPE should be part of the IM clerkship. Most (76%) CDs agreed there is need for faculty development programs in IPE; 27% had such a program at their institution. Lack of curricular time, scheduling conflicts, and lack of faculty trained in IPE were the most frequently cited barriers. Twenty-nine percent had formal IPE activities within their IM clerkships, and 38% were planning to make changes. Of those with formal IPE activities, over a third (37%) did not involve student assessment.

Conclusions

Since LCME standard issuance, only a minority of IM clerkships have included formal IPE activities, with lectures as the predominant method. Opportunities exist for enhancing educational methods as well as IPE faculty development.

SUBMITTER: Alexandraki I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5515782 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent reports, including the Institute of Medicine's Improving Diagnosis in Health Care, highlight the pervasiveness and underappreciated harm of diagnostic error, and recommend enhancing health care professional education in diagnostic reasoning. However, little is known about clinical reasoning curricula at US medical schools.ObjectiveTo describe clinical reasoning curricula at US medical schools and to determine the attitudes of internal medicine clerkship directors toward teaching of clinical reasoning.DesignCross-sectional multicenter study.ParticipantsUS institutional members of the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM).Main measuresExamined responses to a survey that was emailed in May 2015 to CDIM institutional representatives, who reported on their medical school's clinical reasoning curriculum.Key resultsThe response rate was 74% (91/123). Most respondents reported that a structured curriculum in clinical reasoning should be taught in all phases of medical education, including the preclinical years (64/85; 75%), clinical clerkships (76/87; 87%), and the fourth year (75/88; 85%), and that more curricular time should be devoted to the topic. Respondents indicated that most students enter the clerkship with only poor (25/85; 29%) to fair (47/85; 55%) knowledge of key clinical reasoning concepts. Most institutions (52/91; 57%) surveyed lacked sessions dedicated to these topics. Lack of curricular time (59/67, 88%) and faculty expertise in teaching these concepts (53/76, 69%) were identified as barriers.ConclusionsInternal medicine clerkship directors believe that clinical reasoning should be taught throughout the 4 years of medical school, with the greatest emphasis in the clinical years. However, only a minority reported having teaching sessions devoted to clinical reasoning, citing a lack of curricular time and faculty expertise as the largest barriers. Our findings suggest that additional institutional and national resources should be dedicated to developing clinical reasoning curricula to improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce diagnostic error.

Project description:BackgroundPrior to the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine (TM) experiences in undergraduate medical education were uncommon. When students' clinical experiences were interrupted due to the pandemic, TM education provided opportunities for students to participate in clinical care while adhering to social distancing guidelines.ObjectiveTo assess the prevalence of TM experiences in the internal medicine (IM) core clerkship experience prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, during interruption in clinical clerkships, and following the return to in-person activities at US medical schools.DesignThe Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) survey is a national, annually recurring thematic survey of IM core clerkship directors. The 2020 survey focused on effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including a section about TM. The survey was fielded online from August through October 2020.ParticipantsA total of 137 core clinical medicine clerkship directors at Liaison Committee on Medical Education fully accredited US/US territory-based medical schools.Main measuresA 10-item thematic survey section assessing student participation in TM and assessment of TM-related competencies.Key resultsThe response rate was 73.7% (101/137 medical schools). No respondents reported TM curricular experiences prior to the pandemic. During clinical interruption, 39.3% of respondents reported TM experiences in the IM clerkship, whereas 24.7% reported such experiences occurring at the time they completed the survey. A higher percentage of clerkships with an ambulatory component reported TM to be an important competency compared to those without an ambulatory component.ConclusionsThe extent to which TM was used in the IM clinical clerkship, and across clinical clerkships, increased substantially when medical students were removed from in-person clinical duties as a response to COVID-19. When students returned to in-person clinical duties, experiences in TM continued, suggesting the continued value of TM as part of the formal education of students during the medicine clerkship. Curricula and faculty development will be needed to support TM education.

Project description:BackgroundSince the 2011 Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) work hour rules for residents were implemented, 24-30 h call for interns has been replaced by shift work, including night-float. The impact of these changes on undergraduate medical education experiences in internal medicine has not been described.ObjectiveWe aimed to determine the current status of medical students' overnight experiences in Internal Medicine clerkships and sub-internships, and to assess internal medicine educators' perceptions of the importance of overnight work during internal medicine rotations.Design and participantsIn May 2014, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) conducted its annual survey. Twenty-eight questions about student participation in overnight work and perceptions of the importance of overnight work (rated on 1-5 Likert scale, 1 = very unimportant and 5 = ery important) were included. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses. Free text results were analyzed qualitatively.Key resultsThe response rate was 78 %. A minority of respondents reported students having any overnight experience during the clerkship (38.7 %) or the sub-internship (40.7 %). Only 5 % of respondents reported having students assigned to night-float rotations outside of clerkships or sub-internships. Respondents agreed that overnight experiences were more important during the sub-internship than the clerkship, 4.0 ± 1.1 vs. 3.2 ± 1.2, p < 0.001. Admitting new patients, following their course and responding to emergencies were rated as important overnight tasks for both clerkship and sub-internship students.ConclusionsOvernight experiences offer students additional educational opportunities. Clerkship directors felt that the overnight experience for the sub-intern in particular was an important chance to practice providing emergency cross coverage and other intern roles. In the era of ACGME duty hours, there is a need to further examine whether there is a role for increased overnight hospital experiences for medical students.

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.