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: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:In the setting of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, an emergency hospital-wide eWork policy was enacted at Boston Children's Hospital on March 16, 2020. The number of clinicians on campus was restricted to only essential personnel, guidelines limited clinical care delivery to solely non-elective patients, and strict maximums were placed on the numbers of people allowed to congregate in the same physical space. With this abrupt transition to social distancing and electronic communication, the established approach to educating graduate medical trainees became obsolete overnight. Anticipating significant impact on trainee and faculty professional and personal lives, the importance of adaptive teaching strategies was evident. This document details one approach to redesigning the clinical learning system including a description of the learners and environment, the pedagogical principles that guided the approach, and technological tools used in implementation. Additionally, available literature pertinent to this topic is explored, assessment of the work to date is presented, and suggestions are provided regarding future directions related to online graduate medical education.
Project description:Background:Flipped classroom (FC) instruction has become increasingly common in graduate medical education (GME). Objective:The purpose of this study was to profile the use of FC in the GME setting and assess the current status of research quality. Methods:We conducted a systematic literature search of major health and social science databases from July 2017 to July 2018. Articles were screened to ensure they described use of the FC method in an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited residency program and included research outcomes. Resulting articles were analyzed, described, and evaluated for research quality using the Kirkpatrick framework and the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results:Twenty-two articles were identified, all of which were recently published. Five were only indirectly related to FC methods. Most studies reported Kirkpatrick-level outcomes. Studies involving resident learner opinions were generally positive. Pre-posttest studies resulted in large positive improvements in knowledge or skills attainment. Control group study results ranged from large positive (1.56) to negative effects (-0.51). Average MERSQI scores of 12.1 (range, 8.5-15.5) were comparable to GME research norms. Conclusions:Varying methods for implementing and studying the FC in GME has led to variable results. While residents expressed a positive attitude toward FC learning, shortcomings were reported. Approximately half of the studies comparing the flipped to the traditional classroom reported better achievement under the FC design. As indicated by the MERSQI score, studies captured by this review, on average, were as rigorous as typical research on residency education.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Professionalism standards encourage physicians to participate in public advocacy on behalf of societal health and well-being. While the number of publications of advocacy curricula for GME-level trainees has increased, there has been no formal effort to catalog them. OBJECTIVE:To systematically review the existing literature on curricula for teaching advocacy to GME-level trainees and synthesize the results to provide a resource for programs interested in developing advocacy curricula. METHODS:A systematic literature review was conducted to identify articles published in English that describe advocacy curricula for graduate medical education trainees in the USA and Canada current to September 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify articles meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We abstracted information and themes on curriculum development, implementation, and sustainability. Learning objectives, educational content, teaching methods, and evaluations for each curriculum were also extracted. RESULTS:After reviewing 884 articles, we identified 38 articles meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Curricula were offered across a variety of specialties, with 84% offered in primary care specialties. There was considerable heterogeneity in the educational content of included advocacy curriculum, ranging from community partnership to legislative advocacy. Common facilitators of curriculum implementation included the American Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements, institutional support, and preexisting faculty experience. Common barriers were competing curricular demands, time constraints, and turnover in volunteer faculty and community partners. Formal evaluation revealed that advocacy curricula were acceptable to trainees and improved knowledge, attitudes, and reported self-efficacy around advocacy. DISCUSSION:Our systematic review of the medical education literature identified several advocacy curricula for graduate medical education trainees. These curricula provide templates for integrating advocacy education into GME-level training programs across specialties, but more work needs to be done to define standards and expectations around GME training for this professional activity.
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess residency applicants' use and perceptions of Doximity Residency Navigator (DRN) and to analyze the impact of Doximity reputation rankings on application, interview acceptance, and match list ranking decisions.Participants and methodsWe developed and distributed a survey seeking feedback from residency applicants to describe their use of DRN during the 2017 residency recruitment and match process. The dates of the study were March 1, 2017, through May 8, 2017.ResultsWe received responses from 2152 of 12,617 applicants (17%) across 24 graduate medical education programs. Sixty-two percent of respondents (n=1339) used DRN during the residency application, interview, and match list process. Doximity reputation rankings were noted to be valuable or very valuable to 78% of respondents (958 of 1233). Overall, 79% of respondents (977 of 1241) reported that Doximity reputation rankings influenced their application, interview acceptance, or match list ranking decisions. When asked about the accuracy of Doximity reputation rankings, 56% of respondents (699 of 1240) believed that rankings were slightly accurate or not accurate. The most commonly used resources to research potential residency programs were residency program websites, American Medical Association resources, and DRN.ConclusionMost survey respondents used DRN during the application, interview, and match ranking process. Doximity reputation rankings were found to be the most valuable resource in DRN, although more than 50% of responders had doubts about the accuracy of reputation rankings.