Dataset Information

Difference in the general medicine in-training examination score between community-based hospitals and university hospitals: a cross-sectional study based on 15,188 Japanese resident physicians.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The general medicine in-training examination (GM-ITE) is designed to objectively evaluate the postgraduate clinical competencies (PGY) 1 and 2 residents in Japan. Although the total GM-ITE scores tended to be lower in PGY-1 and PGY-2 residents in university hospitals than those in community-based hospitals, the most divergent areas of essential clinical competencies have not yet been revealed.

Methods

We conducted a nationwide, multicenter, cross-sectional study in Japan, using the GM-ITE to compare university and community-based hospitals in the four areas of basic clinical knowledge". Specifically, "medical interview and professionalism," "symptomatology and clinical reasoning," "physical examination and clinical procedures," and "disease knowledge" were assessed.

Results

We found no significant difference in "medical interview and professionalism" scores between the community-based and university hospital residents. However, significant differences were found in the remaining three areas. A 1.28-point difference (95% confidence interval: 0.96-1.59) in "physical examination and clinical procedures" in PGY-1 residents was found; this area alone accounts for approximately half of the difference in total score.

Conclusions

The standardization of junior residency programs and the general clinical education programs in Japan should be promoted and will improve the overall training that our residents receive. This is especially needed in categories where university hospitals have low scores, such as "physical examination and clinical procedures."

SUBMITTER: Nishizaki Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8050907 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although general medicine (GM) faculty in Japanese medical schools have an important role in educating medical students, the importance of residents' rotation training in GM in postgraduate education has not been sufficiently recognized in Japan. To evaluate the relationship between the rotation of resident physicians in the GM department and their In-Training Examination score. METHODS:This study is a nationwide multi-center cross-sectional study in Japan. Participants of this study are Japanese junior resident physicians [postgraduate year (PGY)-1 and PGY-2] who took the General Medicine In-Training Examination (GM-ITE) in fiscal years 2016 to 2018 at least once (n?=?11,244). The numbers of participating hospitals in the GM-ITE were 381, 459, and 503 in 2016, 2017, and 2018.The GM-ITE score consisted of four categories (medical interview/professionalism, symptomatology/clinical reasoning, physical examination/procedure, and disease knowledge). We evaluated relationship between educational environment (including hospital information) and the GM-ITE score. RESULTS:A total of 4464 (39.7%) residents experienced GM department rotation training. Residents who rotated had higher total scores than residents who did not rotate (38.1?±?12.1, 36.8?±?11.7, and 36.5?±?11.5 for residents who experienced GM rotation training, those who did not experience this training in hospitals with a GM department, and those who did not experience GM rotation training in hospitals without a GM department, p?=?0.0038). The association between GM rotation and competency remained after multivariable adjustment in the multilevel model: the score difference between GM rotation training residents and non-GM rotation residents in hospitals without a GM department was estimated as 1.18 (standard error, 0.30, p?=?0.0001), which was approximately half of the standard deviation of random effects due to hospital variation (estimated as 2.00). CONCLUSIONS:GM rotation training improved the GM-ITE score of residents and should be considered mandatory for junior residents in Japan.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of mobile devices in hospital care constantly increases. However, smartphones and tablets have not yet widely become official working equipment in medical care. Meanwhile, the parallel use of private and official devices in hospitals is common. Medical staff use smartphones and tablets in a growing number of ways. This mixture of devices and how they can be used is a challenge to persons in charge of defining strategies and rules for the usage of mobile devices in hospital care.ObjectiveTherefore, we aimed to examine the status quo of physicians' mobile device usage and concrete requirements and their future expectations of how mobile devices can be used.MethodsWe performed a web-based survey among physicians in 8 German university hospitals from June to October 2019. The online survey was forwarded by hospital management personnel to physicians from all departments involved in patient care at the local sites.ResultsA total of 303 physicians from almost all medical fields and work experience levels completed the web-based survey. The majority regarded a tablet (211/303, 69.6%) and a smartphone (177/303, 58.4%) as the ideal devices for their operational area. In practice, physicians are still predominantly using desktop computers during their worktime (mean percentage of worktime spent on a desktop computer: 56.8%; smartphone: 12.8%; tablet: 3.6%). Today, physicians use mobile devices for basic tasks such as oral (171/303, 56.4%) and written (118/303, 38.9%) communication and to look up dosages, diagnoses, and guidelines (194/303, 64.0%). Respondents are also willing to use mobile devices for more advanced applications such as an early warning system (224/303, 73.9%) and mobile electronic health records (211/303, 69.6%). We found a significant association between the technical affinity and the preference of device in medical care (χs2=53.84, P<.001) showing that with increasing self-reported technical affinity, the preference for smartphones and tablets increases compared to desktop computers.ConclusionsPhysicians in German university hospitals have a high technical affinity and positive attitude toward the widespread implementation of mobile devices in clinical care. They are willing to use official mobile devices in clinical practice for basic and advanced mobile health uses. Thus, the reason for the low usage is not a lack of willingness of the potential users. Challenges that hinder the wider adoption of mobile devices might be regulatory, financial and organizational issues, and missing interoperability standards of clinical information systems, but also a shortage of areas of application in which workflows are adapted for (small) mobile devices.

Project description:BackgroundThe increasing development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in medicine driven by researchers and entrepreneurs goes along with enormous expectations for medical care advancement. AI might change the clinical practice of physicians from almost all medical disciplines and in most areas of health care. While expectations for AI in medicine are high, practical implementations of AI for clinical practice are still scarce in Germany. Moreover, physicians' requirements and expectations of AI in medicine and their opinion on the usage of anonymized patient data for clinical and biomedical research have not been investigated widely in German university hospitals.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate physicians' requirements and expectations of AI in medicine and their opinion on the secondary usage of patient data for (bio)medical research (eg, for the development of machine learning algorithms) in university hospitals in Germany.MethodsA web-based survey was conducted addressing physicians of all medical disciplines in 8 German university hospitals. Answers were given using Likert scales and general demographic responses. Physicians were asked to participate locally via email in the respective hospitals.ResultsThe online survey was completed by 303 physicians (female: 121/303, 39.9%; male: 173/303, 57.1%; no response: 9/303, 3.0%) from a wide range of medical disciplines and work experience levels. Most respondents either had a positive (130/303, 42.9%) or a very positive attitude (82/303, 27.1%) towards AI in medicine. There was a significant association between the personal rating of AI in medicine and the self-reported technical affinity level (H4=48.3, P<.001). A vast majority of physicians expected the future of medicine to be a mix of human and artificial intelligence (273/303, 90.1%) but also requested a scientific evaluation before the routine implementation of AI-based systems (276/303, 91.1%). Physicians were most optimistic that AI applications would identify drug interactions (280/303, 92.4%) to improve patient care substantially but were quite reserved regarding AI-supported diagnosis of psychiatric diseases (62/303, 20.5%). Of the respondents, 82.5% (250/303) agreed that there should be open access to anonymized patient databases for medical and biomedical research.ConclusionsPhysicians in stationary patient care in German university hospitals show a generally positive attitude towards using most AI applications in medicine. Along with this optimism comes several expectations and hopes that AI will assist physicians in clinical decision making. Especially in fields of medicine where huge amounts of data are processed (eg, imaging procedures in radiology and pathology) or data are collected continuously (eg, cardiology and intensive care medicine), physicians' expectations of AI to substantially improve future patient care are high. In the study, the greatest potential was seen in the application of AI for the identification of drug interactions, assumedly due to the rising complexity of drug administration to polymorbid, polypharmacy patients. However, for the practical usage of AI in health care, regulatory and organizational challenges still have to be mastered.

Project description:Professionalism is a critical competency for emergency medicine (EM) physicians, and professional behavior affects patient satisfaction. However, the findings of various studies indicate that there are differences in the interpretation of professionalism among EM resident physicians and faculty physicians. Using a cross-sectional survey, we aimed to analyze common challenges to medical professionalism for Japanese EM physicians and survey the extent of professionalism coursework completed during undergraduate medical education. We conducted a multicenter cross-sectional survey of EM resident physicians and faculty physicians at academic conferences and eight teaching hospitals in Japan using the questionnaire by Barry and colleagues. We analyzed the frequency of providing either the best or second-best answers to each scenario as the main outcome measure and compared the frequencies between EM resident physicians and EM faculty physicians. Fisher's exact test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to analyze data. A total of 176 physicians (86 EM resident physicians and 90 EM faculty physicians) completed the survey. The response rate was 92.6%. The most challenging scenario presented to participants dealt with sexual harassment, and only 44.5% chose the best or second-best answers, followed by poor responses to the confidentiality scenario (69.9%). The frequency of either the best or second-best responses to the confidentiality scenario was significantly greater for EM resident physicians than for EM faculty physicians (77.1% versus 62.9%, p = 0.048). More participants in the EM resident physician group completed formal courses in medical professionalism than those in the EM faculty physician group (25.8% versus 5.5%, p < 0.01). Further, EM faculty physicians were less likely than EM resident physicians to provide acceptable responses in terms of confidentiality, and few of both had received professionalism training through school curricula. Continuous professionalism education focused on the prevention of sexual harassment and gender gap is needed for both EM resident physicians and faculty physicians in Japan.

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.