Dataset Information

A resident-led initiative to improve patient safety event reporting in an internal medicine residency program.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite the Clinical Learning Environment Review's recommendations of their use, patient safety event reporting systems are underutilized by residents.

Objective

We aimed to identify perceived barriers to event reporting amongst internal medicine residents and implement a targeted quality improvement initiative to address the identified barriers and increase overall resident event report rates.

Methods

A total of 94 Internal Medicine (IM) residents participated in the educational intervention in 2018. We measured residents' perception of barriers to event reporting and employed the results of the questionnaire to create a skill-based educational workshop. We conducted the plan-do-study-act model to test a structured educational intervention and its effectiveness on pre-post IM residents' event report rates and compared it to report rates of Non-Internal Medicine (Non-IM) residents. Additionally, we assessed pre-post intervention knowledge, skills, and attitudes in event reporting.

Results

94/94 (100%) of IM residents had a significantly higher median percent of patient safety event reporting when compared to pre-intervention (23.6% compared to 5.88%, p-value = 0.0030) and when compared to Non-IM residents (23.6% compared to 5.31%, p-value = 0.0002). Residents performed better on the post-test compared to the pre-test (90% compared to 30%, p-value = 0.0001) for knowledge. 100% of the critical action items were completed and 90% of participants reported their perception of the event reporting process improved.

Conclusions

By elucidating common reasons why residents are not reporting patient safety events, a specific intervention can be created to target the identified impediments and improve resident event reporting.

Abbreviations

IM: Internal Medicine IM; Non-IM: Non-Internal Medicine; IOM: Institute of Medicine I; ACGME CLER: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Clinical Learning Environment Review; GME: Graduate Medical Education; IRB: Institutional Review Board; PDSA: Plan, Do, Study, Act.

SUBMITTER: Zarrabi K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7425618 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Although women have entered medical school and internal medicine residency programs in significant numbers for decades, women faculty remain underrepresented in senior and departmental leadership roles. How residents perceive this gender disparity is unknown. We sought to assess resident perception of gender parity among departmental leadership and teaching faculty in our internal medicine department, and to determine the actual gender distribution of those faculty roles. METHODS:An anonymous cross-sectional survey was distributed to evaluate resident perception of gender representation of various faculty roles. Using conference schedules, resident evaluations, and our department website, we determined the actual representation of women faculty in department leadership roles, and in clinical and educational activities. RESULTS:88 of 164 residents (54%) responded. Women residents were less likely than men to perceive that women faculty were equally represented in department leadership (45% men agreed vs. 13% women, p < 0.05), clinical teaching roles (55% men agreed vs. 28% women, p < 0.05), or facilitating educational conferences (45% men agreed vs. 28% women, p = 0.074). In 2017, the internal medicine department at our institution comprised 815 faculty members, 473 men (58%) and 342 women (42%). At that time, women faculty held 5% of senior departmental leadership positions and 21% of educational leadership positions. During the year preceding survey distribution, women faculty attended on internal medicine inpatient wards for 33% of the total number of weeks, staffed 20% of morning reports, and facilitated 28% of noon conferences. DISCUSSION:Women residents in our internal medicine training program perceived a gender disparity among faculty in leadership and educational positions to a greater extent than male residents. The perception of women trainees was accurate. In addition to disproportionate underrepresentation in leadership positions, women faculty were underrepresented in prominent educational positions, including attending on inpatient services and serving as discussants at educational conferences.

Project description:IntroductionIn 2011, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented new Common Program Requirements to regulate duty hours of resident physicians, with three goals: improved patient safety, quality of resident education and quality of life for trainees. We sought to assess Internal Medicine program director (IMPD) perceptions of the 2011 Common Program Requirements in July 2012, one year following implementation of the new standards.MethodsA cross-sectional study of all IMPDs at ACGME-accredited programs in the United States (N?=?381) was performed using a 32-question, self-administered survey. Contact information was identified for 323 IMPDs. Three individualized emails were sent to each director over a 6-week period, requesting participation in the survey. Outcomes measured included approval of duty hours regulations, as well as perceptions of changes in graduate medical education and patient care resulting from the revised ACGME standards.ResultsA total of 237 surveys were returned (73% response rate). More than half of the IMPDs (52%) reported "overall" approval of the 2011 duty hour regulations, with greater than 70% approval of all individual regulations except senior resident daily duty periods (49% approval) and 16-hour intern shifts (17% approval). Although a majority feel resident quality of life has improved (55%), most IMPDs believe that resident education (60%) is worse. A minority report that quality (8%) or safety (11%) of patient care has improved.ConclusionOne year after implementation of new ACGME duty hour requirements, IMPDs report overall approval of the standards, but strong disapproval of 16-hour shift limits for interns. Few program directors perceive that the duty hour restrictions have resulted in better care for patients or education of residents. Although resident quality of life seems improved, most IMPDs report that their own workload has increased. Based on these results, the intended benefits of duty hour regulations may not yet have been realized.