Do Resident Unions Improve Graduate Medical Education Training? Benefits and Potential Pitfalls.

ABSTRACT: The last 10 years have seen an increase in union representation for residents and fellows across the United States. It is estimated that 15% of residents and fellows are represented by unions. With increasing numbers of U.S. residents and fellows in graduate medical education (GME) programs being represented by unions, the authors contend that it is worthwhile to consider the benefits and potential drawbacks of resident unions and how GME and health system leaders can best work to ensure that the educational needs of residents continue to be emphasized in an era of resident unionization. Union bargaining can be a method to secure salary increases and other benefits for residents. Unionization can also provide a mechanism for more rapidly addressing worker protection issues and allows residents to advocate on behalf of patients. Residents participating as union leaders may develop important leadership and negotiation skills as well as gain beneficial knowledge about health system structure, financing, and priorities. However, with all the possible benefits that may come with resident unionization, there are also potential pitfalls. The collective bargaining process may create an adversarial relationship between program and institution leaders and trainees. Additionally, while residents are considered employees and able to collectively bargain, the National Labor Relations Board has also acknowledged that residents are "students learning their chosen medical craft." Program and institution leaders have an obligation to prioritize resident education and adhere to accreditation requirements even when these requirements conflict with union demands. Furthermore, because of the obligation to protect the public, program leaders should maintain control of resident academic due process issues. Program and institutional leaders must continue to prioritize resident education. Furthermore, GME leaders have a joint responsibility to create clinical learning environments that are conducive to quality patient care and promote resident learning and well-being.

Engaging GME Learners in Health System-Aligned Improvement Work in the Clinical Learning Environment.

Alignment between graduate medical education (GME) and health system priorities is foundational to meaningful engagement of residents and fellows in systems improvement work within the clinical learning environment. The Residents and Fellows Leading Interprofessional Continuous Improvement Teams program at the University of California San Francisco was designed over a decade ago to address barriers to trainee participation in health system-based improvement work. The program provides structure and support for health system-aligned trainee-led improvement projects in the clinic learning environment. Project champions (residents/fellows) from GME programs attend workshops where they learn improvement methodologies and develop proposals for health system-based improvement projects for their training programs. Proposals are supported by local faculty mentors and are reviewed and approved by GME and health systems' leaders. During the academic year, teams share their progress using visual management boards and interactive leader rounds. The health system provides a modest financial incentive for successful projects. Since the program's inception, thousands of trainees from 58 residency and fellowship programs have participated either as champions or participants in the program at least once, and in total over 300 projects have been implemented. Approximately three-quarters of the specific improvement goals were met, all projects meaningfully engaged residents and fellows, and many projects continued after the learners graduated. This active partnership between GME and a health system created a symbiotic relationship; trainees received education and support to complete improvement projects, while the health system reaped additional benefits from the alignment and impact of the projects. This partnership continues to grow with steady increases in participating programs, spread to partner health systems, and scholarship for trainees and faculty.

Analysis of the Interprofessional Clinical Learning Environment for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety From Perspectives of Interprofessional Teams.

BACKGROUND: In 2018 the Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) Program reported that quality improvement and patient safety (QIPS) programs in graduate medical education (GME) were largely unsuccessful in their efforts to transfer QI knowledge and substantive interprofessional QIPS experiences to residents, and CLER 2.0 called for improvement. However, little is known about how to improve the interprofessional clinical learning environment (IP-CLE) for QIPS in GME. OBJECTIVE: To determine the current state of the IP-CLE for QIPS at our institution with a focus on factors affecting the IP-CLE and resident integration into interprofessional QIPS teams. METHODS: We interviewed an interprofessional group of residents, faculty, and staff of key units engaged in IP QIPS activities. We performed thematic analysis through general inductive approach using template analysis methods on transcripts. RESULTS: Twenty individuals from 6 units participated. Participants defined learning on interprofessional QIPS teams as learning from and about each other's roles through collaboration for improvement, which occurs naturally when patients are the focus, or experiential teamwork within QIPS projects. Resident integration into these teams had various benefits (learning about other professions, effective project dissemination), barriers (difficult rotations or program structure, inappropriate assumptions), and facilitators (institutional support structures, promotion of QIPS culture, patient adverse events). There were various benefits (strengthened relationships, lowered bar for further collaboration), barriers (limited time, poor communication), and facilitators (structured meetings, educational culture) to a positive IP-CLE for QIPS. CONCLUSIONS: Cultural factors prominently affected the IP-CLE and patient unforeseen events were valuable triggers for IP QIPS learning opportunities.

Jump-Starting Faculty Development in Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Education: A Team-Based Approach.

PROBLEM: Quality improvement (QI) and patient safety (PS) are cornerstones of health care delivery. Accreditation organizations increasingly require that learners engage in QIPS. For many faculty, these are new domains. Additional faculty development is needed for them to teach and mentor trainees. Existing programs, such as the Association of American Medical Colleges Teaching for Quality (Te4Q) program, target individual faculty and thus accommodate only limited participants at a time, which is problematic for institutions that need to train many faculty to support their learners. APPROACH: The authors invited diverse stakeholders from across the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine and related health systems to participate in a team-based adaptation of the Te4Q program. The teams completed 5 projects based on previously identified priority areas to increase local capacity for QIPS teaching: (1) online modules for faculty new to QIPS, (2) a tool kit for graduate medical education programs, (3) a module for medical school clerkship directors, (4) guidelines for faculty to integrate early learners into QI projects, and (5) a "Teach-for-UCSF" certificate program in teaching QIPS. OUTCOMES: Thirty-five faculty members participated in the initial Te4Q workshop in January 2015, and by fall 2016, all projects were implemented. These projects led to additional faculty development initiatives and a rapidly expanding number of faculty across campus with expertise in teaching QIPS. NEXT STEPS: Further collaborations between faculty focused on QIPS in care delivery and those focused on QIPS education to promote QIPS teaching have resulted from these initial projects.

Observations on the 2016 World Congress on Continuing Professional Development: Advancing Learning and Care in the Health Professions.

The 2016 World Congress on Continuing Professional Development: Advancing Learning and Care in the Health Professions took place in San Diego, California, March 17-19, 2016. Hosts were the Association for Hospital Medical Education (AHME), Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professionals (ACEhp), and Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education (SACME). The target audience was the international community working to improve medical (CME), nursing (CNE), pharmacy (CPE), and interprofessional (CIPE) continuing education (CE) and continuing professional development (CPD). Goals included: addressing patients' concerns and needs; advancing global medical and interprofessional health sciences education; utilizing learning to address health disparities; and promoting international cooperation. The five keynote speakers were: patient advocate Alicia Cole ("Why What We Do Matters: The Patients Voice"); linguist Lorelei Lingard ("Myths about Healthcare Teamwork and Their Implications for How We Understand Competence"); futurist and philosopher Alex Jadad ("What Do We Need to Protect at All Costs in the 21st Century?"); ethicist and change agent Zeke Emanuel ("Learn to Change: Teaching Toward a Shifting Healthcare Horizon"); and technology innovator Stephen Downes ("From Individual to Community: The Learning Is in the Doing"). Organizers announced the new Dave Davis Distinguished Award for Excellence in Mentorship in Continuing Professional Development to honor the career of David Davis, MD, in CME/CPD scholarship in Canada, the United States, and beyond. Participants valued the emphasis on interprofessional education and practice, the importance of integrating the patient voice, the effectiveness of flipped classroom methods, and the power of collective competency theories. Attendee-respondents encouraged Congress planners to continue to strive for a broad global audience and themes of international interest.

Dissemination of Evidence From Systematic Reviews Through Academic CME Providers: A Feasibility Study.

INTRODUCTION: Although systematic reviews represent a source of best evidence to support clinical decision-making, reviews are underutilized by clinicians. Barriers include lack of awareness, familiarity, and access. Efforts to promote utilization have focused on reaching practicing clinicians, leaving unexplored the roles of continuing medical education (CME) directors and faculty in promoting systematic review use. This study explored the feasibility of working with CME directors and faculty for that purpose. METHODS: A convenience sample of five academic CME directors and faculty agreed to participate in a feasibility study exploring use in CME courses of systematic reviews from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ-SRs). AHRQ-SR topics addressed the comparative effectiveness of health care options. Participants received access to AHRQ-SR reports, associated summary products, and instructional resources. The feasibility study used mixed methods to assess 1) implementation of courses incorporating SR evidence, 2) identification of facilitators and barriers to integration, and 3) acceptability to CME directors, faculty, and learners. RESULTS: Faculty implemented 14 CME courses of varying formats serving 1700 learners in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Facilitators included credibility, conciseness of messages, and availability of supporting materials; potential barriers included faculty unfamiliarity with SRs, challenges in maintaining review currency, and review scope. SR evidence and summary products proved acceptable to CME directors, course faculty, and learners by multiple measures. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of approaches to use AHRQ-SRs in CME courses/programming. Further research is needed to demonstrate generalizability to other types of CME providers and other systemic reviews.

Ensuring Resident Competence: A Narrative Review of the Literature on Group Decision Making to Inform the Work of Clinical Competency Committees.

Background The expectation for graduate medical education programs to ensure that trainees are progressing toward competence for unsupervised practice prompted requirements for a committee to make decisions regarding residents' progress, termed a clinical competency committee (CCC). The literature on the composition of these committees and how they share information and render decisions can inform the work of CCCs by highlighting vulnerabilities and best practices. Objective We conducted a narrative review of the literature on group decision making that can help characterize the work of CCCs, including how they are populated and how they use information. Methods English language studies of group decision making in medical education, psychology, and organizational behavior were used. Results The results highlighted 2 major themes. Group member composition showcased the value placed on the complementarity of members' experience and lessons they had learned about performance review through their teaching and committee work. Group processes revealed strengths and limitations in groups' understanding of their work, leader role, and information-sharing procedures. Time pressure was a threat to the quality of group work. Conclusions Implications of the findings include the risks for committees that arise with homogeneous membership, limitations to available resident performance information, and processes that arise through experience rather than deriving from a well-articulated purpose of their work. Recommendations are presented to maximize the effectiveness of CCC processes, including their membership and access to, and interpretation of, information to yield evidence-based, well-reasoned judgments.

Development of an itemwise efficiency scoring method: Concurrent, convergent, discriminant, and neuroimaging-based predictive validity assessed in a large community sample.

Traditional "paper-and-pencil" testing is imprecise in measuring speed and hence limited in assessing performance efficiency, but computerized testing permits precision in measuring itemwise response time. We present a method of scoring performance efficiency (combining information from accuracy and speed) at the item level. Using a community sample of 9,498 youths age 8-21, we calculated item-level efficiency scores on 4 neurocognitive tests, and compared the concurrent, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of these scores with simple averaging of standardized speed and accuracy-summed scores. Concurrent validity was measured by the scores' abilities to distinguish men from women and their correlations with age; convergent and discriminant validity were measured by correlations with other scores inside and outside of their neurocognitive domains; predictive validity was measured by correlations with brain volume in regions associated with the specific neurocognitive abilities. Results provide support for the ability of itemwise efficiency scoring to detect signals as strong as those detected by standard efficiency scoring methods. We find no evidence of superior validity of the itemwise scores over traditional scores, but point out several advantages of the former. The itemwise efficiency scoring method shows promise as an alternative to standard efficiency scoring methods, with overall moderate support from tests of 4 different types of validity. This method allows the use of existing item analysis methods and provides the convenient ability to adjust the overall emphasis of accuracy versus speed in the efficiency score, thus adjusting the scoring to the real-world demands the test is aiming to fulfill. (PsycINFO Database Record

Achieving Hand Hygiene Success With a Partnership Between Graduate Medical Education, Hospital Leadership, and Physicians.

Engaging physicians in hand hygiene programs is a challenge faced by many academic medical centers. Partnerships between education and academic leaders present opportunities for effective collaboration and improvement. The authors developed a robust hand hygiene quality improvement program, with attention to rapid-cycle improvements, including all levels of staff and health care providers. The program included a defined governance structure, clear data collection process, educational interventions, rapid-cycle improvements, and financial incentive for staff and physicians (including residents and fellows). Outcomes were measured on patients in all clinical areas. Run charts were used to document compliance in aggregate and by subgroups throughout the project duration. Institutional targets were achieved and then exceeded, with sustained hand hygiene compliance >90%. Physician compliance lagged behind aggregate compliance but ultimately was sustained at a level exceeding the target. Successfully achieving the institutional goal required collaboration among all stakeholders. Physician-specific data and physician champions were essential to drive improvement.

What's in It for Me? Maintenance of Certification as an Incentive for Faculty Supervision of Resident Quality Improvement Projects.

PROBLEM: Residents are required to engage in quality improvement (QI) activities, which requires faculty engagement. Because of increasing program requirements and clinical demands, faculty may be resistant to taking on additional teaching and supervisory responsibilities without incentives. The authors sought to create an authentic benefit for University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Pediatrics Residency Training Program faculty who supervise pediatrics residents' QI projects by offering maintenance of certification (MOC) Part 4 (Performance in Practice) credit. APPROACH: The authors identified MOC as an ideal framework to both more actively engage faculty who were supervising QI projects and provide incentives for doing so. To this end, in 2011, the authors designed an MOC portfolio program which included faculty development, active supervision of residents, and QI projects designed to improve patient care. OUTCOMES: The UCSF Pediatrics Residency Training Program's Portfolio Sponsor application was approved by the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) in 2012, and faculty whose projects were included in the application were granted MOC Part 4 credit. As of December 2013, six faculty had received MOC Part 4 credit for their supervision of residents' QI projects. NEXT STEPS: Based largely on the success of this program, UCSF has transitioned to the MOC portfolio program administered through the American Board of Medical Specialties, which allows the organization to offer MOC Part 4 credit from multiple specialty boards including the ABP. This may require refinements to screening, over sight, and reporting structures to ensure the MOC standards are met. Ongoing faculty development will be essential.

Is Training in a Primary Care Internal Medicine Residency Associated with a Career in Primary Care Medicine?

PURPOSE: Professional and governmental organizations recommend an ideal US physician workforce composed of at least 40 % primary care physicians. They also support primary care residencies to promote careers in primary care. Our study examines the relationship between graduation from a primary care or categorical internal medicine residency program and subsequent career choice. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey of a cohort of internal medicine residency alumni who graduated between 2001 and 2010 from a large academic center. Our primary predictor was graduation from a primary care versus a categorical internal medicine program and our primary outcome is current career role. We performed chi-square analysis comparing responses of primary care and categorical residents. RESULTS: We contacted 481 out of 513 alumni, of whom 322 responded (67 %). We compared 106 responses from primary care alumni to 169 responses from categorical alumni. Fifty-four percent of primary care alumni agreed that the majority of their current clinical work is in outpatient primary care vs. 20 % of categorical alumni (p < 0.001). While 92.5 % of primary-care alumni were interested in a primary care career prior to residency, only 63 % remained interested after residency. Thirty of the 34 primary care alumni (88 %) who lost interest in a primary care career during residency agreed that their ambulatory experience during residency influenced their subsequent career choice. CONCLUSIONS: A higher percentage of primary care alumni practice outpatient primary care as compared to categorical alumni. Some alumni lost interest in primary care during residency. The outpatient clinic experience may impact interest in primary care.

Reviewing residents' competence: a qualitative study of the role of clinical competency committees in performance assessment.

PURPOSE: Clinical competency committees (CCCs) are now required in graduate medical education. This study examined how residency programs understand and operationalize this mandate for resident performance review. METHOD: In 2013, the investigators conducted semistructured interviews with 34 residency program directors at five public institutions in California, asking about each institution's CCCs and resident performance review processes. They used conventional content analysis to identify major themes from the verbatim interview transcripts. RESULTS: The purpose of resident performance review at all institutions was oriented toward one of two paradigms: a problem identification model, which predominated; or a developmental model. The problem identification model, which focused on identifying and addressing performance concerns, used performance data such as red-flag alerts and informal information shared with program directors to identify struggling residents.In the developmental model, the timely acquisition and synthesis of data to inform each resident's developmental trajectory was challenging. Participants highly valued CCC members' expertise as educators to corroborate the identification of struggling residents and to enhance credibility of the committee's outcomes. Training in applying the milestones to the CCC's work was minimal.Participants were highly committed to performance review and perceived the current process as adequate for struggling residents but potentially not for others. CONCLUSIONS: Institutions orient resident performance review toward problem identification; a developmental approach is uncommon. Clarifying the purpose of resident performance review and employing efficient information systems that synthesize performance data and engage residents and faculty in purposeful feedback discussions could enable the meaningful implementation of milestones-based assessment.

Changing resident test ordering behavior: a multilevel intervention to decrease laboratory utilization at an academic medical center.

Hospital laboratory test volume is increasing, and overutilization contributes to errors and costs. Efforts to reduce laboratory utilization have targeted aspects of ordering behavior, but few have utilized a multilevel collaborative approach. The study team partnered with residents to reduce unnecessary laboratory tests and associated costs through multilevel interventions across the academic medical center. The study team selected laboratory tests for intervention based on cost, volume, and ordering frequency (complete blood count [CBC] and CBC with differential, common electrolytes, blood enzymes, and liver function tests). Interventions were designed collaboratively with residents and targeted components of ordering behavior, including system changes, teaching, social marketing, academic detailing, financial incentives, and audit/feedback. Laboratory ordering was reduced by 8% cumulatively over 3 years, saving $2 019 000. By involving residents at every stage of the intervention and targeting multiple levels simultaneously, laboratory utilization was reduced and cost savings were sustained over 3 years.