Dataset Information

Ophthalmology training and competency levels in care of patients with ophthalmic complaints in United States internal medicine, emergency medicine and family medicine residents.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To evaluate ophthalmic educational training and confidence levels in care of patients with ophthalmic complaints in internal, emergency, and family medicine residencies in the United States. METHODS:A 41-item cross-sectional survey was sent to 529 internal medicine, 237 emergency medicine and 629 family medicine Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency program directors. The survey included the number of ophthalmic education hours residents received during their respective training programs. Respondents were asked to rate their confidence levels in performing an ophthalmic exam and treating patients with ocular conditions using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "not-confident" to "very confident". RESULTS:In total 92.5% of internal medicine, 66.8% emergency medicine and 74.5% family medicine residents received less than 10 hours of ophthalmic education during their residencies. A majority of respondents (59.1% internal medicine, 76.0% emergency medicine, and 65.7% family medicine) reported that patients with ocular complaints constitute 1-5% of visits. Mean confidence levels in performing an eye exam and treating patients with ophthalmic conditions was highest in emergency medicine residency programs 2.9 (SD 0.7), followed by family medicine 2.3 (SD 0.6) and internal medicine 2.2 (SD 0.6). Reported higher number of ophthalmic education hour's received in residency was associated with greater confidence levels in emergency (P<0.001), family (P<0.001), and internal (P=0.005) medicine programs. CONCLUSION:Internal, emergency ,and family medicine residents receive limited ophthalmic education and is reflected in the overall low confidence levels in performing an ophthalmic exam and treating patients with ocular complaints. An increase in ophthalmic educational hours during their respective residencies is recommended to improve upon this knowledge gap.

SUBMITTER: Gelston CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6748877 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ophthalmology training and competency levels in care of patients with ophthalmic complaints in United States internal medicine, emergency medicine and family medicine residents.

Gelston Christopher Daniel CD Patnaik Jennifer Landrigan JL

Journal of educational evaluation for health professions 20190829

<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate ophthalmic educational training and confidence levels in care of patients with ophthalmic complaints in internal, emergency, and family medicine residencies in the United States.<h4>Methods</h4>A 41-item cross-sectional survey was sent to 529 internal medicine, 237 emergency medicine and 629 family medicine Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency program directors. The survey included the number of ophthalmic education hours r ...[more]

PMID: 31461804

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesSince incivility is linked to adverse effects in patient care and health care worker well-being, evaluation of the prevalence of incivility during the formative years of residency training is warranted. The aim of this study was to determine the perceived presence and degree of incivility between emergency medicine (EM) and ophthalmology residents during emergency department (ED) consultations.MethodsWe conducted a single-site, survey-based study, targeted to ophthalmology and EM residents. The survey we distributed included questions adapted from validated and widely used surveys measuring incivility in the workplace (Workplace Incivility Scale) and incivility within the ED.ResultsOphthalmology (13/15, 86.7%) and EM (42/48, 87.5%) residents participated, with an overall response rate of 55 of 63 (87.3%). Most residents (47/55, 85.5%) reported some degree of incivility during consultations, with a greater proportion of females reporting incivility (100%) than males (77.4%, p = 0.033). A total of 52.7% of respondents reported occurrence of incivility on a quarterly basis; 21.8% reported monthly, 10.9% weekly, and none daily. Incivilities were reported most commonly during nonurgent consults (85.5%). The two most common incivilities reported by trainees were when the other party paid little attention to their statements or opinions (80% of residents) or doubted their professional judgment (74.5% of residents). More female trainees reported jokes being told at their expense compared to males (15.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.049). Residents most often attributed incivility to stress (78.2%), loss of empathy/burnout (63.6%), or attempts to shift responsibility to another party (60.0%). Among EM residents surveyed, incivility was identified as occurring most often during consultations with surgical specialties.ConclusionsIncivility during interdepartmental consultations between EM and ophthalmology is commonly reported by physicians-in-training. It occurs more often during consultations deemed as nonurgent and is more commonly reported by females. Given its associations with adverse outcomes, interventions to decrease incivility early in training may be warranted.

Project description:ImportanceGender disparities exist throughout medicine. Recent studies have highlighted an attainment gap between male and female residents in performance evaluations on Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones. Because of difficulties in blinding evaluators to gender, it remains unclear whether these observed disparities are because of implicit bias or other causes.ObjectiveTo estimate the magnitude of implicit gender bias in assessments of procedural competency in emergency medicine residents and whether the gender of the evaluator is associated with identified implicit gender bias.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional study was performed from 2018 to 2020 in which emergency medicine residency faculty assessed procedural competency by evaluating videos of residents performing 3 procedures in a simulated environment. They were blinded to the intent of the study. Proceduralists were filmed performing each procedure from 2 different viewpoints simultaneously by 2 different cameras. One was a gender-blinded (ie, hands-only) view, and the other a wide-angled gender-evident (ie, whole-body) view. The faculty evaluators viewed videos in a random order and assessed procedural competency on a global rating scale with extensive validity evidence for the evaluation of video-recorded procedural performance.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was to determine if there was a difference in the evaluation of procedural competency based on gender. The secondary outcome was to determine if there was a difference in the evaluations based on the gender of the evaluator.ResultsFifty-one faculty evaluators enrolled from 19 states, with 22 male participants (43.1%), 29 female participants (56.9%), and a mean (SD) age of 37 (6.4) years. Each evaluator assessed all 60 procedures: 30 gender-blinded (hands-only view) videos and 30 identical gender-evident (wide angle) videos. There were no statistically significant differences in the study evaluators' scores of the proceduralists based on their gender, and the gender of the evaluator was not associated with the difference in mean scores.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, we did not identify a difference in the evaluation of procedural competency based upon the gender of the resident proceduralist or the gender of the faculty evaluator.

Dataset Information

Ophthalmology training and competency levels in care of patients with ophthalmic complaints in United States internal medicine, emergency medicine and family medicine residents.

Publications

Ophthalmology training and competency levels in care of patients with ophthalmic complaints in United States internal medicine, emergency medicine and family medicine residents.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets