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.

SUBMITTER: Windish DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8562932 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Windish Donna M DM Catalanotti Jillian S JS Zaas Aimee A Kisielewski Michael M Moriarty John P JP

Journal of general internal medicine 20211102 11

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>Assess residents' training in SOP and treatment of OUD and identify training barriers.<h4>Des ...[more]

PMID: 34729698

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:ObjectivePediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellowship directors can interview candidates from either pediatric or EM residency programs. Currently, most candidates are pediatricians; however, because emergency physicians have attributes that could benefit PEM, our goal was to investigate facilitators and barriers to training more of them to become PEM physicians.MethodsWe surveyed U.S. PEM fellowship program directors (PDs) about their program's recruitment practices: Do they recruit only pediatricians or mostly pediatricians with an occasional emergency physician or do they actively recruit both? We solicited volunteers from each recruitment group for interviews. These were recorded, transcribed, and thematically coded using summative content analysis. Comments were cataloged into themes that were philosophical or logistic in nature and those that might facilitate (drivers) or serve as barriers (restrainers) to the inclusion of emergency physicians in PEM.ResultsWe received 50 of 86 (58%) survey responses, 29 (34%) of whom volunteered for interviews. The 17 volunteers we selected for interviews generated 13 themes that fell into the four major theme categories: four philosophical drivers, three logistic drivers, two philosophical restrainers, and four logistic restrainers. Program groups differed with regard to the inclusion of emergency physicians. Most limiting were the impact of variable program length and the implicit belief that pediatricians are best suited to treat children. Most beneficial is the recognized value of EM graduates to the field of PEM.ConclusionsWhile PDs acknowledged a growing need for PEM physicians, particularly in community hospitals, and that emergency physicians would contribute to PEM, they also identified the logistical burden of including them in programs primarily designed for pediatricians. This burden involves maintaining separate curricula for EM graduates and finding emergency physician faculty to serve as mentors. PDs also expressed a desire for resources to guide the integration of more emergency physicians into their programs.

Project description:BackgroundWhile 26% of US adults are disabled, only 3.1 to 9.3% of practicing physicians report having a disability. Ableism within medical training and practice diminishes physician diversity and wellbeing and contributes to healthcare disparities.ObjectiveExplore physician barriers to disability equity and inclusion by examining internal medicine (IM) program directors' (PD) perspectives about recruiting and accommodating residents with disabilities (RWD).DesignQualitative study involving semi-structured virtual interviews (conducted December 2022-September 2023; analyzed through December 2023).ParticipantsPDs were recruited via email. Purposive sampling captured program diversity in size, location, and affiliations. Convenience sampling ensured PD diversity by gender, race/ethnicity, and age.ApproachCoders analyzed thematic and discursive content of interview transcripts to characterize PD perspectives about RWDs and accommodations.Key resultsOf the 15 programs represented, 4 had ≤ 49 and 8 had ≥ 100 total residents. Three were community-based; the rest had academic affiliations. On average, PDs had 17 (SD 8.2) years in practice. Most (11/15) identified as White race; 8/15 as female; and none as disabled. PDs characterized disability as a source of grit and empathy but also as an intrinsic deficit. They worried RWDs could have unpredictable absences and clinical incompetencies. Perceived accommodation challenges included inexperience, workload distribution, information asymmetry about accommodation needs or options, barriers to disclosure (e.g., discrimination concerns), and insufficient accommodation advertising. Perceived facilitators included advanced planning; clear, publicized processes; and access to expertise (e.g., occupational health, ombudsmen).ConclusionsPDs held contradictory views of RWDs. PD insights revealed opportunities to alleviate PD-RWD information asymmetry in recruitment/accommodation processes, which could help align needs and improve representation and inclusion.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Main measures

Key results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets