Internal Medicine Resident Perspectives on Virtual Recruitment.

This survey study describes the perceived implications of virtual-only recruitment and the preferred application process for residents and fellows.

Residency Program Responses to Early COVID-19 Surges Highlight Tension as to Whether Residents Are Learners or Essential Workers.

PURPOSE: To quantify the extent to which internal medicine (IM) residents provided care for patients with COVID-19 and examine characteristics of residency programs with or without plans (at some point) to exclude residents from COVID-19 care during the first 6 months of the pandemic. METHOD: The authors used data from a nationally representative, annually recurring survey of U.S. IM program directors (PDs) to quantify early (March-August 2020) resident participation in COVID-19 care. The survey was fielded from August to December 2020. PDs reported whether they had planned to exclude residents from COVID-19 care (i.e., PTE status). PTE status was tested for association with program and COVID-19 temporal characteristics, resident schedule accommodations, and resident COVID-19 cases. RESULTS: The response rate was 61.5% (264/429). Nearly half of PDs (45.4%, 118/260) reported their program had planned at some point to exclude residents from COVID-19 care. Northeastern U.S. programs represented a smaller percentage of PTE than non-PTE programs (26.3% vs 36.6%; P = .050). PTE programs represented a higher percentage of programs with later surges than non-PTE programs (33.0% vs 13.6%, P = .048). Median percentage of residents involved in COVID-19 care was 75.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 22.5-100.0) for PTE programs, compared with 95.0 (IQR: 60.0-100.0) for non-PTE programs ( P < .001). Residents participated most in intensive care units (87.6%, 227/259) and inpatient wards (80.8%, 210/260). Accommodations did not differ by PTE status. PTE programs reported fewer resident COVID-19 cases than non-PTE programs (median percentage = 2.7 [IQR: 0.0-8.6] vs 5.1 [IQR: 1.6-10.7]; P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: IM programs varied widely in their reported plans to exclude residents from COVID-19 care during the early pandemic. A high percentage of residents provided COVID-19 care, even in PTE programs. Thus, the pandemic highlighted the tension as to whether residents are learners or employees.

Hazard pay for internal medicine resident physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national survey of program directors.

BACKGROUND: Hazard pay for resident physicians has been controversial in the COVID-19 pandemic. Program director (PD) beliefs about hazard pay and the extent of provision to internal medicine (IM) residents are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate hazard pay provision to residents early in the COVID-19 pandemic and pandemic and residency program characteristics associated with hazard pay. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative survey was conducted of 429 US/US territory-based IM PDs from August to December 2020. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Hazard pay provision and PD beliefs about hazard pay were tested for association with factors related to the pandemic surge and program characteristics. RESULTS: Response rate was 61.5% (264/429); 19.5% of PDs reported hazard pay provision. PD belief about hazard pay was equivocal: 33.2% agreed, 43.1% disagreed, and 23.7% were uncertain. Hazard pay occurred more commonly in the Middle-Atlantic Census Division (including New York City) and with earlier surges and greater resident participation in COVID-19 patient care. Hazard pay occurred more commonly where PDs supported hazard pay (74.5% vs. 22.1%, p = .018). Reasons most frequently given in support of hazard pay were essential worker status, equity, and schedule disruption. Those opposed cited professional obligation and equity. CONCLUSION: Hazard pay for IM residents early in the COVID-19 pandemic was nominal but more commonly associated with heavily impacted institutions. Although PD beliefs were mixed, positive belief was associated with provision. The unique role of residents as both essential workers and trainees might explain our varied results. Further investigation may inform future policy, especially in times of crisis.