Rita M. Patel

The resident application process and its correlation to future performance as a resident.

Many authors have attempted to determine predictors for success within a residency program. There is very little agreement about what is useful. We hypothesized that our residency selection process is effective in determining which resident applicants would be most likely to excel in our program. To test this hypothesis, we reviewed the scores that applicants received after their interview day to determine if there was a correlation with any measures used to evaluate residents once they entered residency training. Our results determined that the score given to an applicant fails to correlate with any of the areas that are evaluated throughout their residency. The only statistically significant correlation was between the scores assigned by the selection committee to applicants and the applicant scores on their first year in training examination. We concluded that our residency selection process score does not accurately predict which applicants will excel in our program.

Ultrasound imaging in medical student education: Impact on learning anatomy and physical diagnosis.

Ultrasound use has expanded dramatically among the medical specialties for diagnostic and interventional purposes, due to its affordability, portability, and practicality. This imaging modality, which permits real‐time visualization of anatomic structures and relationships in vivo, holds potential for pre‐clinical instruction of students in anatomy and physical diagnosis, as well as providing a bridge to the eventual use of bedside ultrasound by clinicians to assess patients and guide invasive procedures. In many studies, but not all, improved understanding of anatomy has been demonstrated, and in others, improved accuracy in selected aspects of physical diagnosis is evident. Most students have expressed a highly favorable impression of this technology for anatomy education when surveyed. Logistic issues or obstacles to the integration of ultrasound imaging into anatomy teaching appear to be readily overcome. The enthusiasm of students and anatomists for teaching with ultrasound has led to widespread implementation of ultrasound‐based teaching initiatives in medical schools the world over, including some with integration throughout the entire curriculum; a trend that likely will continue to grow. Anat Sci Educ 10: 176–189.

Facilitation of resident scholarly activity: strategy and outcome analyses using historical resident cohorts and a rank-to-match population.

Background:Facilitation of residents’ scholarly activities is indispensable to the future of medical specialties. Research education initiatives and their outcomes, however, have rarely been reported. Methods:Since academic year 2006, research education initiatives, including research lectures, research problem–based learning discussions, and an elective research rotation under a new research director’s supervision, have been used. The effectiveness of the initiatives was evaluated by comparing the number of residents and faculty mentors involved in residents’ research activity (Preinitiative [2003–2006] vs. Postinitiative [2007–2011]). The residents’ current postgraduation practices were also compared. To minimize potential historical confounding factors, peer-reviewed publications based on work performed during residency, which were written by residents who graduated from the program in academic year 2009 to academic year 2011, were further compared with those of rank-to-match residents, who were on the residency ranking list during the same academic years, and could have been matched with the program of the authors had the residents ranked it high enough on their list. Results:The Postinitiative group showed greater resident research involvement compared with the Preinitiative group (89.2% [58 in 65 residents] vs. 64.8% [35 in 54]; P = 0.0013) and greater faculty involvement (23.9% [161 in 673 faculty per year] vs. 9.2% [55 in 595]; P < 0.0001). Choice of academic practice did not increase (50.8% [Post] vs. 40.7% [Pre]; P = 0.36). Graduated residents (n = 38) published more often than the rank-to-match residents (n = 220) (55.3% [21 residents] vs. 13.2% [29]; P < 0.0001, odds ratio 8.1 with 95% CI of 3.9 to 17.2). Conclusion:Research education initiatives increased residents’ research involvement.

Impact of a productivity-based compensation system on faculty clinical teaching scores, as evaluated by anesthesiology residents

STUDY OBJECTIVE To determine whether financial incentives given to faculty members for favorable teaching scores improve the quality of clinical education. DESIGN Retrospective analysis. SETTING Large U.S. academic anesthesiology department. STUDY SUBJECTS 61 academic and 72 clinical faculty members. MEASUREMENTS Since, academic year (AY) 2004, as part of a comprehensive clinical and academic productivity-based compensation system, academic faculty members receiving higher operating room (OR) teaching evaluation scores from the residents have been rewarded financially. Clinical Faculty members also have been rated, but have not received incentives based on scores. Annual averaged OR teaching scores of each faculty member on a 0-9 scale, where 9 = best, were gathered anonymously with faculty classification (academic or clinical). Average overall scores and percentage of faculty with each score category (8.51-9.00, 8.01-8.50, 7.00-8.00, or <7.00) were compared between the pre-implementation (AY2002-AY2003) and post-implementation (AY2004-AY2005) periods. Scores between the academic and clinical faculty also were compared. MAIN RESULTS No significant difference was noted in the average scores between the pre-implementation and post-implementation periods in a paired comparison (academic: 7.83 ± 0.48 vs 7.85 ± 0.50, P = 0.61; clinical: 7.54 ± 0.75 vs 7.66 ± 0.60, P = 0.21). No statistically significant change was noted in the composition of score categories in the academic (P = 0.63) or clinical faculty (P = 0.20) members. Overall, the academic faculty received significantly higher scores than the clinical faculty (7.84 ± 0.49 vs 7.60 ± 0.67, P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS A productivity-based faculty compensation system did not appear to influence faculty OR teaching scores.