Internal medicine rounding practices and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies.

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has established the requirement for residency programs to assess trainees' competencies in 6 core domains (patient care, medical knowledge, practice-based learning, interpersonal skills, professionalism, and systems-based practice). As attending rounds serve as a primary means for educating trainees at academic medical centers, our study aimed to identify current rounding practices and attending physician perceived capacity of different rounding models to promote teaching within the ACGME core competencies. METHODS: We disseminated a 24-question survey electronically using educational and hospital medicine leadership mailing lists. We assessed attending physician demographics and the frequency with which they used various rounding models, as defined by the location of the discussion of the patient and care plan: bedside rounds (BR), hallway rounds (HR), and card-flipping rounds (CFR). Using the ACGME framework, we assessed the perceived educational value of each model. RESULTS: We received 153 completed surveys from attending physicians representing 34 institutions. HR was used most frequently for both new and established patients (61% and 43%), followed by CFR for established patients (36%) and BR for new patients (22%). Most attending physicians indicated that BR and HR were superior to CFR in promoting the following ACGME competencies: patient care, systems-based practice, professionalism, and interpersonal skills. CONCLUSIONS: HR is the most commonly employed rounding model. BR and HR are perceived to be valuable for teaching patient care, systems-based practice, professionalism, and interpersonal skills. CFR remains prevalent despite its perceived inferiority in promoting teaching across most of the ACGME core competencies.

Mentorship, productivity, and promotion among academic hospitalists.

BACKGROUND: United States academic hospitals have rapidly adopted the hospitalist model of care. Academic hospitalists have taken on much of the clinical and teaching responsibilities at many institutions, yet little is known about their academic productivity and promotion. OBJECTIVE: We sought to discover the attitudes and attributes of academic hospitalists regarding mentorship, productivity, and promotion. DESIGN: We performed a web-based email survey of academic hospitalists consisting of 61 questions. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred and twenty academic hospitalists. MAIN MEASURES: Demographic details, scholarly production, presence of mentorship and attitudes towards mentor, academic rank KEY RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-six (63%) of hospitalists responded. The majority were under 41 (80%) and had been working as hospitalists for <5 years (62%). Only 42% of academic hospitalists had a mentor. Forty-four percent of hospitalists had not presented a poster or abstract at national meeting; 51% had not been first author on a peer-reviewed publication. Factors positively associated with publication of a peer-reviewed first author paper included: 1) male gender, AOR = 2.38 (95% CI 1.30, 4.33), 2) >20% "protected" time, AOR = 1.92 (95% CI 1.00, 3.69), and 3) a better-than-average understanding of the criteria for promotion, AOR = 3.66 (95% CI 1.76, 7.62). A lack of mentorship was negatively associated with producing any peer-reviewed first author publications AOR = 0.43 (95% CI 0.23, 0.81); any non-peer reviewed publications AOR = 0.45 (95% CI 0.24, 0.83), and leading a teaching session at a national meeting AOR = 0.41 (95% CI 0.19, 0.88). Most hospitalists promoted to the level of associate professor had been first author on four to six peer-reviewed publications. CONCLUSIONS: Most academic hospitalists had not presented a poster at a national meeting, authored an academic publication, or presented grand rounds at their institution. Many academic hospitalists lacked mentorship and this was associated with a failure to produce scholarly activity. Mentorship may improve academic productivity among hospitalists.

Developing educators, investigators, and leaders during internal medicine residency: the area of distinction program.

BACKGROUND: Professional organizations have called for individualized training approaches, as well as for opportunities for resident scholarship, to ensure that internal medicine residents have sufficient knowledge and experience to make informed career choices. CONTEXT AND PURPOSE: To address these training issues within the University of California, San Francisco, internal medicine program, we created the Areas of Distinction (AoD) program to supplement regular clinical duties with specialized curricula designed to engage residents in clinical research, global health, health equities, medical education, molecular medicine, or physician leadership. We describe our AoD program and present this initiative's evaluation data. METHODS AND PROGRAM EVALUATION: We evaluated features of our AoD program, including program enrollment, resident satisfaction, recruitment surveys, quantity of scholarly products, and the results of our resident's certifying examination scores. Finally, we described the costs of implementing and maintaining the AoDs. RESULTS: AoD enrollment increased from 81% to 98% during the past 5 years. Both quantitative and qualitative data demonstrated a positive effect on recruitment and improved resident satisfaction with the program, and the number and breadth of scholarly presentations have increased without an adverse effect on our board certification pass rate. CONCLUSIONS: The AoD system led to favorable outcomes in the domains of resident recruitment, satisfaction, scholarship, and board performance. Our intervention showed that residents can successfully obtain clinical training while engaging in specialized education beyond the bounds of core medicine training. Nurturing these interests 5 empower residents to better shape their careers by providing earlier insight into internist roles that transcend classic internal medicine training.