An ounce of prevention: how are we managing the early assessment of residents' clinical skills?: A CERA study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical skills deficits in residents are common but when identified early can result in decreased cost, faculty time, and stress related to remediation. There is currently no accepted best practice for early assessment of incoming residents' clinical skills. This study describes the current state of early PGY-1 clinical skills assessment in US family medicine residencies. METHODS: Eleven questions were embedded in the nationwide CERA survey to US family medicine residency directors regarding the processes, components, and barriers to early PGY-1 assessment. Responses are described, and bivariate analyses of the relationship between assessment variables and percentage of international medical graduates (IMGs), type of program, and barriers to implementation were performed using chi square testing. RESULTS: Almost four of five (78.4%) responding programs conduct formal early assessments to establish baseline clinical skills (89.6%), provide PGY-1 residents with a guide to focus their learning goals (71.6%), and less often, in response to resident performance problems (34.3%). Barriers to implementing PGY-1 early assessment programs include cost of faculty time (56.3%), cost of tools (42.1%), and time for the assessment during the PGY-1 resident's schedule (41.0%). Cost of faculty time and time for assessment from the PGY-1 resident's schedule were statistically significant major/insurmountable barriers for community-based, non-university-affiliated programs. CONCLUSIONS: Early PGY-1 assessments with locally developed tools for direct observation are commonly used in family medicine residency programs. Assessment program development should be targeted toward using existing, validated tools during the PGY-1 resident's patient care schedule.

Expert communication training for providers in community health centers.

BACKGROUND: Community health center (CHC) clinicians describe significant challenges in delivering care for populations with complex health needs. INTERVENTION: A three-workshop series was presented to 102 providers working in CHCs. Training focused on four areas identified through online needs assessment: challenging interactions; patient perspective; health literacy; and motivational interviewing. EVALUATION METHODS: A retrospective pre-post evaluation measured self-perceived change in content knowledge in all four areas. Participants documented commitments to change behaviors across workshops, which were analyzed for recurring themes. RESULTS: Paired t-tests documented improvement in all four content areas. Content analysis of commitments yielded four themes: empowering patients, structuring care, understanding patients, and reflecting purposefully. Of the sixty-eight percent of participants responding to post-workshop queries about their commitments (n=70), 94% report having fully implemented changes in practice behavior or planning to do so. CONCLUSIONS: Providers at CHCs benefit from opportunities to learn and reflect together about communication challenges in practice.