Search

Background Some internal medicine (IM) residents pursuing subspecialty training choose short-term hospitalist employment prior to fellowship, or "pre-fellowship hospitalist years." Residency and fellowship program directors (PDs) advise residents on this decision, but PD experience with fellows pursuing pre-fellowship hospitalist years and the impact on fellowship applications is unknown. Objective We aimed to explore perceptions of fellowship PDs regarding experience with fellows who pursued pre-fellowship hospitalist years, including perceived effects on how such years affect fellowship application candidacy. Methods A purposive sample of 20 fellowship PDs in the most highly competitive and commonly selected IM fellowships (cardiology, pulmonology/critical care medicine, hematology/oncology, gastroenterology) from 5 academic institutions were approached for participation in fall 2021. Interviews included semi-structured questions about pre-fellowship hospitalist employment. Utilizing rapid qualitative analysis, interview transcripts were summarized and reviewed to identify themes and subthemes describing fellowship PDs' perspectives of pre-fellowship hospitalist years. Results Sixteen fellowship PDs (80%) participated. PDs identified 4 major themes as important for trainees considering pre-fellowship hospitalist years: (1) Explain the "Why"-why the year was pursued; (2) Characteristics of the Hospitalist Position-what type of employment; (3) The Challenges-potential concerns faced with pre-fellowship hospitalist years; and (4) Describe the "What"-the experience's contribution to resident professional development. Conclusions Fellowship PDs in 4 competitive IM subspecialities placed a strong emphasis on explaining a clear, logical reason for seeking short-term hospitalist employment prior to fellowship, describing how it fits into the overall career trajectory, and selecting activities that demonstrate continued commitment to the subspecialty.

Background: Residents rate morning report (MR) as an essential educational activity. Little contemporary evidence exists to guide medical educators on the optimal content or most effective delivery strategies, particularly in the era of resident duty-hour limitations and shifts towards learner-centric pedagogy in graduate medical education., Objective: Assess resident views about MR content and teaching strategies., Design: Anonymous, online survey., Participants: Internal medicine residents from 10 VA-affiliated residency programs., Main Measures: The 20-item survey included questions on demographics; frequency and reason for attending; opinions on who should attend, who should teach, and how to prioritize the teaching; and respondents' comfort level with participating in MR. The survey included a combination of Likert-style and multiple-choice questions with the option for multiple responses., Key Results: A total of 497 residents (46%) completed the survey, with a balanced sample of R1s (33%), R2s (35%), and R3s (31%). Self-reported MR attendance was high (31% always attend; 39% attend > 50% of the time), with clinical duties being the primary barrier to attendance (85%). Most respondents felt that medical students (89%), R1 (96%), and R2/R3s (96%) should attend MR; there was less consensus regarding including attendings (61%) or fellows (34%). Top-rated educational topics included demonstration of clinical reasoning (82%), evidence-based medicine (77%), and disease pathophysiology (53%). Respondents valued time spent on diagnostic work-up (94%), management (93%), and differential building (90%). Overall, 82% endorsed feeling comfortable speaking; fewer R1s reported comfort (76%) compared with R2s (87%) or R3s (83%, p = 0.018). Most (81%) endorsed that MR was an inclusive learning environment (81%), with no differences by level of training., Conclusions: MR remains a highly regarded, well-attended educational conference. Residents value high-quality cases that emphasize clinical reasoning, diagnosis, and management. A supportive, engaging learning environment with expert input and concise, evidence-based teaching is desired.

Background: There are more than five hundred internal medicine residency programs in the USA, involving 27,000 residents. Morning report is a central educational activity in resident education, but no recent studies describe its format or content., Objective: To describe the format and content of internal medicine morning reports., Design and Participants: Prospective observational study of morning reports occurring between September 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019, in ten different VA academic medical centers in the USA., Main Measures: Report format, number and type of learner, number and background of attending, frequency of learner participation, and the type of media used. Content areas including quality and safety, high-value care, social determinants of health, evidence-based medicine, ethics, and bedside teaching. For case-based reports, the duration of different aspects of the case was recorded, the ultimate diagnosis when known, and if the case was scripted or unscripted., Results: A total of 225 morning reports were observed. Reports were predominantly case-based, moderated by a chief resident, utilized digital presentation slides, and involved a range of learners including medicine residents, medical students, and non-physician learners. The most common attending physician present was a hospitalist. Reports typically involved a single case, which the chief resident reviewed prior to report and prepared a teaching presentation using digital presentation slides. One-half of cases were categorized as either rare or life-threatening. The most common category of diagnosis was medication side effects. Quality and safety, high-value care, social determinants of health, and evidence-based medicine were commonly discussed. Medical ethics was rarely addressed., Conclusions: Although a wide range of formats and content were described, internal medicine morning report most commonly involves a single case that is prepared ahead of time by the chief resident, uses digital presentation slides, and emphasizes history, differential diagnosis, didactics, and rare or life-threatening diseases.

Rationale and Objectives: To introduce a process that allows for development of standardized competency based testing modules (CBTM) for evaluating resident progress and competence during their radiology training. This work focuses on the development of pediatric imaging CBTMs to be utilized during general radiology residency., Materials and Methods: Multiple in-patient and ER imaging request audits along with surveys of training programs and text recommendations were obtained. A list of 200 total diagnoses accumulated by review was distributed into one of four CBTM folders. Imaging cases which made ≥90% of the indications of the audits were added to Folder 1. Distribution of remaining imaging diagnoses was based on consensus by three subspecialists. A pilot study was performed with residents dictating selected imaging cases in their usual manner mimicking a typical rotation., Results: The pilot study demonstrated resident grading mean scores significantly associated with both the American College of Radiology (ACR) rank (rho = 0.636, p = 0.035) and the objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) scores (rho = 0.694, p = 0.018). The mean scores positively associated with the ACR score (rho = 0.466), but fell short of statistical significance (p = 0.149). As expected, the ACR score, ACR rank and OSCE scores all significantly correlated with each other ( < 0.01). PGY also significantly correlated with the ACR score (rho = 0.683, p = 0.021) and the OSCE (rho = 0.767, p = 0.006) but not with the ACR rank (rho = 0.408, p = 0.213)., Conclusion: The process utilized to develop a standardized CBTM can be used as a simulation tool to assess radiology resident competence during their training. The format allows for assessment of resident reasoning skills and knowledge base, which provides documentation of progression and throughout residency., (Copyright © 2020 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The increase in applications to residency programs, known as "application inflation," creates challenges for program directors (PDs). Prior studies have shown that internal medicine (IM) PDs utilize criteria, such as United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step examination performance, when reviewing applications. However, little is known about how early these filters are utilized in the application review cycle., Objective: This study sought to assess the frequency and types of filters utilized by IM PDs during initial residency application screening and prior to more in-depth application review., Methods: A web-based request for the 2016 Internal Medicine In-Training Examination (IM-ITE) PD Survey was sent to IM PDs. Responses from this survey were analyzed, excluding non-US programs., Results: With a 50% response rate (214 of 424), IM PDs responded that the most commonly used data points to filter applicants prior to in-depth application review were the USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score (32%, 67 of 208), USMLE Step 1 score (24%, 50 of 208), and medical school attended (12%, 25 of 208). Over half of US IM PD respondents (55%, 114 of 208) indicated that they list qualifying interview criteria on their program website, and 31% of respondents (50 of 160) indicated that more than half of their applicant pool does not meet the program's specified interview criteria., Conclusions: Results from the 2016 IM-ITE PD Survey indicate many IM PDs use filters for initial application screening, and that these filters, when available to applicants, do not affect many applicants' decisions to apply., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors declare they have no competing interests., (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education 2019.)

The internal medicine (IM) subinternship has been a long-established clinical experience in the final phase of medical school deemed by key stakeholders as a crucial rotation to prepare senior medical students for internship. Medical education has changed greatly since the first national curriculum for this course was developed in 2002 by the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM). Most notably, competency-based medical education (CBME) has become a fixture in graduate medical education and has gradually expanded into medical school curricula. Still, residency program directors and empirical studies have identified gaps and inconsistencies in knowledge and skills among new interns. Recognizing these gaps, the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine (APDIM) surveyed its members in 2010 and identified four core skills essential for intern readiness. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also published 13 core entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for entering residency to be expected of all medical school graduates. Results from the APDIM survey along with the widespread adoption of CBME informed this redesign of the IM subinternship curriculum. The authors provide an overview of this new guide developed by the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine (AAIM) Medical Student-to-Resident Interface Committee (MSRIC).