Dataset Information

Training in Safe Opioid Prescribing and Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder in Internal Medicine Residencies: a National Survey of Program Directors

ABSTRACT:

Background

Training future clinicians in safe opioid prescribing (SOP) and treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is critical to address the opioid epidemic. The Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education requires all programs to provide instruction and experience in pain management and will mandate addiction medicine clinical experiences for internal medicine trainees.

Objective

Assess residents’ training in SOP and treatment of OUD and identify training barriers.

Design

Cross-sectional nationally representative survey was emailed in 2019.

Participants

Four hundred twenty-two Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine members in US internal medicine residency programs.

Main Measures

Program opportunities and challenges to developing or implementing training in SOP, treatment of OUD, and buprenorphine waiver training, and perceived curricular effectiveness.

Key Results

The response rate was 69.4% (293/422). Most programs required didactics in SOP (94.2%) and treatment of OUD (71.7%). Few programs required clinical experiences including addiction medicine clinics (28/240, 11.7%), inpatient consult services (11/240, 4.6%), or offsite treatment rotations (8/240, 3.3%). Lack of trained faculty limited developing or implementing curricula (61.5%). Few respondents reported that their program was “very effective” in teaching SOP (80/285, 28.1%) or treatment of OUD (43/282, 15.3%). Some programs offered buprenorphine waiver training to residents (83/286, 29.0%) and faculty (94/286, 32.9%) with few mandating training (11.7% (28/240) and 5.4% (13/240) respectively). Only 60 of 19,466 (0.3%) residents completed buprenorphine waiver training. Primary care programs/tracks were more likely to offer waiver training to residents (odds ratio [OR], 3.07; 95% CI, 1.68–5.60; P < 0.001) and faculty (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01–3.22; P = 0.05).

Conclusions

In this nationally representative survey, few internal medicine residency programs provided clinical training in SOP and treatment of OUD, and training was not viewed as very effective. Lack of effective training may have adverse implications for patients, clinicians, and society.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07102-y.

SUBMITTER: Windish D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8562932 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundCase-based Morning Report (MR) has long been the predominant educational conference in Internal Medicine (IM) residency programs. The last comprehensive survey of IM MR was in 1986. Much has changed in the healthcare landscape since 1986 that may impact MR.ObjectiveWe sought to determine the current state of MR across all US IM programs.DesignIn 2018, US IM program directors (PDs) were surveyed about the dynamics of MR at their institutions, perceived pressures, and realized changes.Key resultsThe response rate was 70.2% (275/392). MR remains highly prevalent (97.5% of programs), although held less frequently (mean 3.9 days/week, SD 1.2), for less time (mean 49.4 min, SD 12.3), and often later in the day compared to 1986. MR attendees have changed, with more diversity of learners but less presence of educational leaders. PD presence at MR is associated with increased resident attendance (high attendance: 78% vs 61%, p=0.0062) and punctuality (strongly agree/agree: 59% vs 43%, p=0.0161). The most cited goal for MR is utilizing cases to practice clinical reasoning. Nearly 40% of PDs feel pressure to move or cancel MR; of those, 61.2% have done so, most commonly changing the timing (48.5%), reducing the length (18.4%), and reducing the number of sessions per week (11.7%). Compared to community-based and to community-based, university-affiliated programs, university-based programs have 2.9 times greater odds (95% CI: 1.3, 6.9; p = 0.0081) and 2.5 times greater odds (95% CI 1.5, 4.4; p =0.0007), respectively, of holding MR after 9 AM, and 1.8 times greater odds (95% CI: 0.8, 4.2; p = 0.1367) and 2.0 times greater odds (95% CI: 1.2, 3.5; p = 0.0117), respectively, of reporting pressure to cancel or move MR compared to their counterparts.ConclusionsWhile MR ubiquity reflects its continued perceived value, PDs have modified MR to accommodate changes in the healthcare environment. This includes reduced frequency, shorter length, and moving conferences later in the day. Additional studies are needed to understand how these changes impact learning.

Project description:BackgroundPrior to the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine (TM) experiences in undergraduate medical education were uncommon. When students' clinical experiences were interrupted due to the pandemic, TM education provided opportunities for students to participate in clinical care while adhering to social distancing guidelines.ObjectiveTo assess the prevalence of TM experiences in the internal medicine (IM) core clerkship experience prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, during interruption in clinical clerkships, and following the return to in-person activities at US medical schools.DesignThe Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) survey is a national, annually recurring thematic survey of IM core clerkship directors. The 2020 survey focused on effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including a section about TM. The survey was fielded online from August through October 2020.ParticipantsA total of 137 core clinical medicine clerkship directors at Liaison Committee on Medical Education fully accredited US/US territory-based medical schools.Main measuresA 10-item thematic survey section assessing student participation in TM and assessment of TM-related competencies.Key resultsThe response rate was 73.7% (101/137 medical schools). No respondents reported TM curricular experiences prior to the pandemic. During clinical interruption, 39.3% of respondents reported TM experiences in the IM clerkship, whereas 24.7% reported such experiences occurring at the time they completed the survey. A higher percentage of clerkships with an ambulatory component reported TM to be an important competency compared to those without an ambulatory component.ConclusionsThe extent to which TM was used in the IM clinical clerkship, and across clinical clerkships, increased substantially when medical students were removed from in-person clinical duties as a response to COVID-19. When students returned to in-person clinical duties, experiences in TM continued, suggesting the continued value of TM as part of the formal education of students during the medicine clerkship. Curricula and faculty development will be needed to support TM education.