Dataset Information

Understanding resident learning preferences within an internal medicine noon conference lecture series: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The lecture remains the most common approach for didactic offerings in residency programs despite conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of this format. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of internal medicine residents toward conferences held in the lecture format. METHODS: The investigators invited internal medicine residents (N = 144) to participate in focus groups discussing their perspectives about noon conference lectures. The investigators used a semistructured guide to ask about motivations for attendance and effectiveness of noon conferences, transcribed the recordings, coded the discussions, and analyzed the results. RESULTS: Seven focus groups with a total of 41 residents were held. This identified 4 major domains: (1) motivations for attendance; (2) appropriate content; (3) effective teaching methods; and (4) perspectives on active participation. Residents' motivations were categorized into external factors, including desire for a break and balance to their workload, and intrinsic attributes, including the learning opportunity, topic, and speaker. Appropriate content was described as clinically relevant, practical, and presenting a balance of evidence. Identified effective teaching methods included shorter teaching sessions focused on high-yield learning points structured around cases and questions. While active participation increases residents' perceived level of stress, the benefits of this format include increased attention and learning. CONCLUSIONS: This study furthers our knowledge of the learning preferences of internal medicine residents within the changing environment of residency education and can be used in conjunction with principles of adult learning to reform how we deliver core medical knowledge.

SUBMITTER: Sawatsky AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3963791 | biostudies-other | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveMorbidity and mortality conference (M&M) is common in emergency medicine (EM) and an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirement. We aimed to characterize the prevalence of elements of EM M&M conferences that foster a strong culture of safety.MethodsEmergency medicine residents at 33 programs across the United States were surveyed using questions adapted from a previously tested survey of EM program directors and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Culture of Safety Survey.ResultsThe survey response rate was 80.3% (1,002/1,248). A total of 60.3% (601/997) of residents had not submitted a case of theirs to M&M in the past year. A total of 7.6% (73/954) reported that issues raised at M&M always led to change while 88.3% (842/954) reported that they sometimes did and 4.1% (39/954) reported that they never did. A total of 56.2% (536/954) responded that changes made due to M&M were reported back to the residents. Of residents who had cases presented at M&M, 24.2% (130/538) responded that there was regular debriefing, 65.2% (351/538) responded that there was not, and 10.6% (57/578) were unsure. A total of 10.2% (101/988) of respondents agreed that M&M was punitive, 17.4% were neutral (172/988), and 72.4% (715/988) disagreed. A total of 18.0% (178/987) of residents agreed that they felt pressure to order unnecessary tests because of M&M, 22.3% (220/987) were neutral, and 59.6% (589/987) disagreed. A total of 87.4% (862/986) felt that M&M was a valuable educational didactic session, and 78.3% (766/978) believed that M&M contributes to a culture of safety in their institution.ConclusionsWhile most residents believe that M&M is a valuable didactic session and contributes to institutional culture of safety, there are opportunities to improve by communicating changes made in response to M&M, debriefing residents who have had cases presented, and taking steps to make M&M not feel punitive to some residents.

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:ImportanceThe internal medicine (IM) chief residency is a position of leadership and honor common in IM programs, but the goals, responsibilities, and experiences of those who undertake it can be highly variable. Studies assessing the experience and impressions of the chief resident (CR) position from the viewpoint of the IM CRs are lacking.ObjectiveTo describe the structure, responsibilities, and perceptions of the IM CR role across IM residency programs.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional, simple descriptive electronic survey for current CRs was administered between April and June 2018 across US IM residency programs accredited by US Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. A 2-step nonrandom sampling approach was used: first, snowball sampling was performed using the authors' professional networks, and second, the survey was sent to the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine (APDIM) CR listserv. Data analysis was performed from June 2020 to August 2020.ExposuresParticipation as a CR for an IM residency program in the 2017 to 2018 academic year.Main outcomes and measuresDescriptive CR personal and program characteristics and CR perceptions of administrative, clinical, and leadership experiences.ResultsAmong 169 unique responses, 77 participants (46%) were female and 89 (53%) were White. The response rate was 57% (70 of 122 surveys) in the snowball sample and 12% (99 of 842 surveys) in the APDIM listserv. The 2 sampled groups were combined for analysis. Most respondents (125 CRs [74%]) were from academic or university-based programs. Common across CR responses was responsibility for administrative tasks, clinical work, and educational efforts. Most CRs (111 of 157 respondents [71%]) reported being the primary schedulers for the residency program. Clinical work differed widely across respondents. Only 70 of 156 respondents (45%) reported having an academic title associated with the CR role. CRs reported inconsistent evaluation throughout the year, with high percentages reporting never receiving feedback on teaching (34 respondents [23%]), clinical abilities (67 respondents [45%]), or leadership abilities (60 respondents [40%]). Most CRs (107 respondents [69%]) agreed that they find work as a CR fulfilling and 117 (74%) agreed they would do chief residency again.Conclusions and relevanceDespite its ubiquity in training programs across the US, the IM CR experience is very different across programs. Recommendations are provided to consider for improvement of the CR experience, including structured feedback opportunities, maximizing educational and clinical experiences, and standardizing policies.

Dataset Information

Understanding resident learning preferences within an internal medicine noon conference lecture series: a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets