Search

Background Few studies have assessed the efficacy of asynchronous curricula (AC) in GME. In 2018 we introduced the John Hopkins Physician Education & Assessment Center, a module-based pediatric primary care AC to replace in-person didactics (IPD). While residents liked the concept of AC, usage was low. This led to further investigation to optimize the impact of AC, resulting in a new blended curriculum (BC). Aim Identify barriers to AC use; compare usage and satisfaction with AC alone vs. BC; determine if poor AC use in 2018 impacted knowledge as measured on the pediatric in-training exam (ITE). Design A survey was sent to residents exposed to 1 year of AC to assess barriers and preference for IPD vs. AC. Results prompted design of a BC for 2019 with monthly resident-led conferences and faculty-led board review on assigned modules with incentives for module completion (MC). After 6 months of BC use, satisfaction and MC were assessed. ITE scores were collected from 2018 and 2019 for those exposed to a year of IPD and then a year of AC. Questions on primary care topics (PCT) were identified and a PCT subscore was computed. Results 22/32 residents (69%) exposed to 1 year of AC completed the survey. 73% preferred a blend of IPD and AC, whereas prior to AC, 65% preferred AC to IPD. 68% cited either lack of protected time (41%) or accountability (23%) as barriers to MC. After 6 months of exposure to BC, 35/57 residents (61%) responded to the next survey; there was no preference for any one BC component. MC for AC vs. BC was compared for 52 residents; median MC in 6 months increased by 3 in BC (p Conclusion A BC with in-person components and more accountability led to higher MC, underscoring the need to accommodate diverse learning styles. Resident PCT scores decreased significantly after 1 year of the underutilized AC. Further study will determine the impact of better BC participation on PCT scores.