Rachel B. Levine

Teaching the Teachers: National Survey of Faculty Development in Departments of Medicine of U.S. Teaching Hospitals

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence, topics, methods, and intensity of ongoing faculty development (FD) in teaching skills.DESIGN: Mailed survey.PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and seventy-seven of the 386 (72%) U.S. teaching hospitals with internal medicine residency programs.MEASUREMENTS: Prevalence and characteristics of ongoing FD.RESULTS: One hundred and eight teaching hospitals (39%) reported ongoing FD. Hospitals with a primary medical school affiliation (university hospitals) were more likely to have ongoing FD than nonuniversity hospitals. For nonuniversity hospitals, funding from the Health Resources Services Administration and >50 house staff were associated with ongoing FD. For university hospitals, >100 department of medicine faculty was associated. Ongoing programs included a mean of 10.4 topics (standard deviation, 5.4). Most offered half-day workshops (80%), but 22% offered ≥1-month programs. Evaluations were predominantly limited to postcourse evaluations forms. Only 14% of the hospitals with ongoing FD (5% of all hospitals) had “advanced” programs, defined as offering ≥10 topics, lasting >2 days, and using ≥3 experiential teaching methods. These were significantly more likely to be university hospitals and to offer salary support and/or protected time to their FD instructors. Generalists and hospital-based faculty were more likely to receive training than subspecialist and community-based faulty. Factors facilitating participation in FD activities were supervisor attitudes, FD expertise, and institutional culture.CONCLUSIONS: A minority of U.S. teaching hospitals offer ongoing faculty development in teaching skills. Continued progress will likely require increased institutional commitment, improved evaluations, and adequate resources, particularly FD instructors and funding.

Predictive validity evidence for medical education research study quality instrument scores: Quality of submissions to JGIM's medical education special issue

BackgroundDeficiencies in medical education research quality are widely acknowledged. Content, internal structure, and criterion validity evidence support the use of the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) to measure education research quality, but predictive validity evidence has not been explored.ObjectiveTo describe the quality of manuscripts submitted to the 2008 Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) medical education issue and determine whether MERSQI scores predict editorial decisions.Design and ParticipantsCross-sectional study of original, quantitative research studies submitted for publication.MeasurementsStudy quality measured by MERSQI scores (possible range 5–18).ResultsOf 131 submitted manuscripts, 100 met inclusion criteria. The mean (SD) total MERSQI score was 9.6 (2.6), range 5–15.5. Most studies used single-group cross-sectional (54%) or pre-post designs (32%), were conducted at one institution (78%), and reported satisfaction or opinion outcomes (56%). Few (36%) reported validity evidence for evaluation instruments. A one-point increase in MERSQI score was associated with editorial decisions to send manuscripts for peer review versus reject without review (OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.07–1.61, p = 0.009) and to invite revisions after review versus reject after review (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.05–1.58, p = 0.02). MERSQI scores predicted final acceptance versus rejection (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.10–1.58, p = 0.003). The mean total MERSQI score of accepted manuscripts was significantly higher than rejected manuscripts (10.7 [2.5] versus 9.0 [2.4], p = 0.003).ConclusionsMERSQI scores predicted editorial decisions and identified areas of methodological strengths and weaknesses in submitted manuscripts. Researchers, reviewers, and editors might use this instrument as a measure of methodological quality.

Resident Research and Scholarly Activity in Internal Medicine Residency Training Programs

OBJECTIVES: 1) To describe how internal medicine residency programs fulfill the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) scholarly activity training requirement including the current context of resident scholarly work, and 2) to compare findings between university and nonuniversity programs.DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey.SETTING: ACGME-accredited internal medicine residency programs.PARTICIPANTS: Internal medicine residency program directors.MEASUREMENTS: Data were collected on 1) interpretation of the scholarly activity requirement, 2) support for resident scholarship, 3) scholarly activities of residents, 4) attitudes toward resident research, and 5) program characteristics. University and nonuniversity programs were compared.MAIN RESULTS: The response rate was 78%. Most residents completed a topic review with presentation (median, 100%) to fulfill the requirement. Residents at nonuniversity programs were more likely to complete case reports (median, 40% vs 25%; P=.04) and present at local or regional meetings (median, 25% vs 20%; P=.01), and were just as likely to conduct hypothesis-driven research (median, 20% vs 20%; P=.75) and present nationally (median, 10% vs 5%; P=.10) as residents at university programs. Nonuniversity programs were more likely to report lack of faculty mentors (61% vs 31%; P<.001) and resident interest (55% vs 40%; P=.01) as major barriers to resident scholarship. Programs support resident scholarship through research curricula (47%), funding (46%), and protected time (32%).CONCLUSIONS: Internal medicine residents complete a variety of projects to fulfill the scholarly activity requirement. Nonuniversity programs are doing as much as university programs in meeting the requirement and supporting resident scholarship despite reporting significant barriers.

Stories From Early-Career Women Physicians Who Have Left Academic Medicine: A Qualitative Study at a Single Institution

Purpose The number of women in academic medicine has steadily increased, although gender parity still does not exist and women leave academics at somewhat higher rates than men. The authors investigated the reasons why women leave careers in academic medicine. Method Semistructured, one-on-one interviews were conducted in 2007–2008 with 20 women physicians who had left a single academic institution to explore their reasons for opting out of academic careers. Data analysis was iterative, and an editing analysis style was used to derive themes. Results A lack of role models for combining career and family responsibilities, frustrations with research (funding difficulties, poor mentorship, competition), work–life balance, and the institutional environment (described as noncollaborative and biased in favor of male faculty) emerged as key factors associated with a decision to leave academic medicine for respondents. Faced with these challenges, respondents reevaluated their priorities and concluded that a discrepancy existed between their own and institutional priorities. Many respondents expressed divergent views with the institutional norms on how to measure success and, as a consequence, felt that they were undervalued at work. Conclusions Participants report a disconnection between their own priorities and those of the dominant culture in academic medicine. Efforts to retain women faculty in academic medicine may include exploring the aspects of an academic career that they value most and providing support and recognition accordingly.

Completing a scholarly project during residency training. Perspectives of residents who have been successful.

AbstractBACKGROUND: Resident research has potential benefits and scholarly activity is an internal medicine residency training requirement. This study sought to learn about the resources needed and the barriers to performing scholarly work during residency from residents who had been successful. METHODS: A questionnaire was delivered to 138 internal medicine residents presenting their work at the 2002 American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine annual session. Residents were asked to comment on why they had participated in a scholarly project, the skills and resources needed to complete the project, as well as the barriers. Comparisons were made between residents who presented a research abstract and those who exhibited a clinical vignette. RESULTS: Seventy-three residents (53%) completed the questionnaire. Thirty-nine residents presented a clinical vignette and 34 displayed a research abstract. Residents participated in research for a variety of reasons, including intellectual curiosity (73%), career development (60%), and to fulfill a mandatory scholarly activity requirement at their residency program (32%). The most common barriers were insufficient time (79%), inadequate research skills (45%), and lack of a research curriculum (44%). Residents who had presented research abstracts devoted more time (median, 200 vs 50 hours; P<.05) to their project than those who exhibited clinical vignettes. Sixty-nine percent of residents thought research should be a residency requirement. CONCLUSION: The majority of respondents reported that their scholarly project was a worthwhile experience despite considerable barriers. Teaching research skills more explicity with a focused curriculum and providing adequate protected time may enable residents to be successful.

Completing a Scholarly Project During Residency Training

AbstractBACKGROUND: Resident research has potential benefits and scholarly activity is an internal medicine residency training requirement. This study sought to learn about the resources needed and the barriers to performing scholarly work during residency from residents who had been successful. METHODS: A questionnaire was delivered to 138 internal medicine residents presenting their work at the 2002 American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine annual session. Residents were asked to comment on why they had participated in a scholarly project, the skills and resources needed to complete the project, as well as the barriers. Comparisons were made between residents who presented a research abstract and those who exhibited a clinical vignette. RESULTS: Seventy-three residents (53%) completed the questionnaire. Thirty-nine residents presented a clinical vignette and 34 displayed a research abstract. Residents participated in research for a variety of reasons, including intellectual curiosity (73%), career development (60%), and to fulfill a mandatory scholarly activity requirement at their residency program (32%). The most common barriers were insufficient time (79%), inadequate research skills (45%), and lack of a research curriculum (44%). Residents who had presented research abstracts devoted more time (median, 200 vs 50 hours; P<.05) to their project than those who exhibited clinical vignettes. Sixty-nine percent of residents thought research should be a residency requirement. CONCLUSION: The majority of respondents reported that their scholarly project was a worthwhile experience despite considerable barriers. Teaching research skills more explicity with a focused curriculum and providing adequate protected time may enable residents to be successful.

Part-Time Physicians…Prevalent, Connected, and Satisfied

ObjectiveThe health care workforce is evolving and part-time practice is increasing. The objective of this work is to determine the relationship between part-time status, workplace conditions, and physician outcomes.DesignMinimizing error, maximizing outcome (MEMO) study surveyed generalist physicians and their patients in the upper Midwest and New York City.Measurements and Main ResultsPhysician survey of stress, burnout, job satisfaction, work control, intent to leave, and organizational climate. Patient survey of satisfaction and trust. Responses compared by part-time and full-time physician status; 2-part regression analyses assessed outcomes associated with part-time status. Of 751 physicians contacted, 422 (56%) participated. Eighteen percent reported part-time status (n = 77, 31% of women, 8% of men, p < .001). Part-time physicians reported less burnout (p < .01), higher satisfaction (p < .001), and greater work control (p < .001) than full-time physicians. Intent to leave and assessments of organizational climate were similar between physician groups. A survey of 1,795 patients revealed no significant differences in satisfaction and trust between part-time and full-time physicians.ConclusionsPart-time is a successful practice style for physicians and their patients. If favorable outcomes influence career choice, an increased demand for part-time practice is likely to occur.

Personal growth during internship: A qualitative analysis of interns' responses to key questions

BACKGROUND: During clinical training, house officers frequently encounter intense experiences that may affect their personal growth. The purpose of this study was to explore processes related to personal growth during internship.DESIGN: Prospective qualitative study conducted over the course of internship.PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two postgraduate year (PGY)-1 residents from 9 U.S. internal medicine training programs.APPROACH: Every 8 weeks, interns responded by e-mail to an open-ended question related to personal growth. Content analysis methods were used to analyze the interns’ writings to identify triggers, facilitators, and barriers related to personal growth.RESULTS: Triggers for personal growth included caring for critically ill or dying patients, receiving feedback, witnessing unprofessional behavior, experiencing personal problems, and dealing with the increased responsibility of internship. Facilitators of personal growth included supportive relationships, reflection, and commitment to core values. Fatigue, lack of personal time, and overwhelming work were barriers to personal growth. The balance between facilitators and barriers may dictate the extent to which personal growth occurs.CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to support personal growth during residency training include fostering supportive relationships, encouraging reflection, and recognizing interns’ core values especially in association with powerful triggers.

Personal Growth and its Correlates During Residency Training

Objectives  To explore the characteristics of and factors associated with personal growth during residency training.

Outcomes of a National Faculty Development Program in Teaching Skills: Prospective Follow-up of 110 Internal Medicine Faculty Development Teams

BACKGROUND: Awareness of the need for ambulatory care teaching skills training for clinician-educators is increasing. A recent Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded national initiative trained 110 teams from U.S. teaching hospitals to implement local faculty development (FD) in teaching skills.OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate of successful implementation of local FD initiatives by these teams.METHODS: A prospective observational study followed the 110 teams for up to 24 months. Self-reported implementation, our outcome, was defined as the time from the training conference until the team reported that implementation of their FD project was completely accomplished. Factors associated with success were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis.RESULTS: The median follow-up was 18 months. Fifty-nine of the teams (54%) implemented their local FD project and subsequently trained over 1,400 faculty, of whom over 500 were community based. Teams that implemented their FD projects were more likely than those that did not to have the following attributes: met more frequently (P=.001), had less turnover (P=.01), had protected time (P=.01), rated their likelihood of success high (P=.03), had some project or institutional funding for FD (P=.03), and came from institutions with more than 75 department of medicine faculty (P=.03). The cost to the HRSA. wwas