Dataset Information

Trainee and Program Director Perspectives on Meaningful Patient Attribution and Clinical Outcomes Data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education specifies that trainees must receive clinical outcomes and quality benchmark data at specific levels related to institutional patient populations. Program directors (PDs) are challenged to identify meaningful data and provide them in formats acceptable to trainees.

Objective

We sought to understand what types of patients, data/metrics, and data delivery systems trainees and PDs prefer for supplying trainees with clinical outcomes data.

Methods

Trainees (n = 21) and PDs (n = 12) from multiple specialties participated in focus groups during academic year 2017-2018. They described key themes for providing clinical outcomes data to trainees.

Results

Trainees and PDs differed in how they identified patients for clinical outcomes data for trainees. Trainees were interested in encounters where they felt a sense of responsibility or had autonomy/independent decision-making opportunities, continuity, or learned something new; PDs used broader criteria including all patients cared for by their trainees. Both groups thought trainees should be given trainee-level metrics and consistently highlighted the importance of comparison to peers and/or benchmarks. Both groups found value in "push" and "pull" data systems, although trainees wanted both, while PDs wanted one or the other. Both groups agreed that trainees should review data with specific faculty. Trainees expressed concern about being judged based on their patients' clinical outcomes.

Conclusions

Trainee and PD perspectives on which patients they would like outcomes data for differed, but they overlapped for types of metrics, formats, and review processes for the data.

SUBMITTER: Rosenbluth G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7301928 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWomen are underrepresented within internal medicine (IM). Whether women leaders attract women trainees is not well explored.ObjectiveTo characterize leader and trainee gender across US academic IM and to investigate the association of leader gender with trainee gender.DesignCross-sectional study.ParticipantsLeaders (chairs, chiefs, program directors (PDs)) in 2018 and trainees (residents, fellows) in 2012-2016 at medical school-affiliated IM and seven IM fellowship programs.ExposureLeadership (chair/chief and program director; and, for resident analyses, fellow) gender.Main measuresOur primary outcome was percent women trainees (IM residents and, separately, subspecialty fellows). We used standard statistics to describe leadership and trainee gender. We created separate multivariable linear regressions to evaluate associations of leader gender and percent women fellows with percent women IM residents. We then created separate multivariable multilevel models (site as a random effect) to evaluate associations of leader gender with percent women subspecialty fellows.Key resultsOur cohort consisted of 940 programs. Women were 13.4% of IM chairs and <25% of chiefs in each fellowship subspecialty (cardiology: 2.6%; gastroenterology: 6.6%; pulmonary and critical care: 10.7%; nephrology: 14.4%; endocrinology: 20.6%; hematology-oncology: 23.2%; infectious diseases: 24.3%). IM PDs were 39.7% women; fellowship PDs ranged from nearly 25% (cardiology and gastroenterology) to nearly 50% (endocrinology and infectious disease) women. Having more women fellows (but not chairs or PDs) was associated with having more women residents (0.3% (95% CI: 0.2-0.5%) increase per 1% fellow increase, p<0.001); this association remained after adjustment (0.3% (0.1%, 0.4%), p=0.001). In unadjusted analyses, having a woman PD (increase of 7.7% (4.7%, 10.6%), p<0.001) or chief (increase of 8.9% (4.6%, 13.1%), p<0.001) was associated with an increase in women fellows; after adjustment, these associations were lost.ConclusionsWomen held a minority of leadership positions in academic IM. Having women leaders was not independently associated with having more women trainees.

Project description:BackgroundThe last formal review of academic anesthesiology department Web sites (ADWs) for content was conducted in 2009. ADWs have been rated as very important by medical students in researching residency training programs; however, the rapid evolution of sites require that descriptive statistics must be more current to be considered reliable. We set out to provide an updated overview of ADW content and to better understand residency program directors' (PD) role and comfort with ADWs.MethodsTwo independent reviewers (ND and HL) analyzed all 131 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited ADWs. A binary system (Yes/No) was used to determine which features were present. Reviewer reliability was confirmed with inter-rater reliability and percentage agreement calculation. Additionally, a blinded electronic survey (Survey Monkey, Portland, OR) was sent to anesthesiology residency PDs via electronic mail investigating the audiences for ADWs, the frequency of updates and the degree of PD involvement.Results13% of anesthesiology departments still lack a Web site with a homepage with links to the residency program and educational offerings (18% in 2009). Only half (55%) of Web sites contain information for medical students, including clerkship information. Furthermore, programs rarely contain up-to-date calendars (13%), accreditation cycle lengths (11%), accreditation dates (7%) or board pass rates (6%). The PD survey, completed by 42 of 131 PDs, noted a correlation (r = 0.36) between the number of years as PD and the frequency of Web site updates - less experienced PDs appear to update their sites more frequently (p = 0.03). Although 86% of PDs regarded a Web site as "very" important in recruitment, only 9% felt "very" comfortable with the skills required to advertise and market a Web site.ConclusionsDespite the overall increase in ADW content since 2009, privacy concerns, limited resources and time constraints may prevent PDs from providing the most up-to-date Web sites for applicants and other interested audiences. PDs are aware of value of Web sites for recruitment, are typically involved in determining ADW content, but few feel very comfortable marketing a training program on the Web.