Supervision and Care Quality as Perceived by Redeployed Attendings, Fellows, and Residents During a COVID-19 Surge: Lessons for the Future.

PURPOSE: To better prepare for potential future large-scale redeployments, this study examines quality of supervision and care as perceived by redeployed residents, fellows, and attendings during a COVID-19 surge. METHOD: During April and May 2020, attendings, fellows, and residents redeployed at 2 teaching hospitals were invited to participate in a survey, which included questions on respondents' prior experience; redeployed role; amount of supervision needed and received; and perceptions of quality of supervision, patient care, and interprofessional collaboration. Frequencies, means, and P values were calculated to compare perceptions by experience and trainee status. Narrative responses to 2 open-ended questions were independently coded; themes were constructed. RESULTS: Overall, 152 of 297 (51.2%) individuals responded, including 64 of 142 attendings (45.1%), 40 of 79 fellows (50.6%), and 48 of 76 residents (63.2%). Fellows and attendings, regardless of prior experience, perceived supervision as adequate. In contrast, experienced residents reported receiving more supervision than needed, while inexperienced residents reported receiving less supervision than needed and rated overall supervision as poor. Attendings, fellows, and experienced residents rated the overall quality of care as acceptable to good, whereas inexperienced residents perceived overall quality of care as worse to much worse, particularly when compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Narrative themes indicated that the quality of supervision and care was buffered by strong camaraderie, a culture of informal consultation, team composition (mixing experienced with inexperienced), and clinical decision aids. The markedly negative view of inexperienced residents suggests a higher risk for disillusionment, perhaps even moral injury, during future redeployments. Implications for planning are explored.

Supervision, Interprofessional Collaboration, and Patient Safety in Intensive Care Units during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: To meet coronavirus disease (COVID-19) demands in the spring of 2020, many intensive care (IC) units (ICUs) required help of redeployed personnel working outside their regular scope of practice, causing an expansion and change of staffing ratios. Objective: How did this composite alternative ICU workforce experience supervision, interprofessional collaboration, and quality and safety of care under the unprecedented clinical circumstances at the height of the first pandemic wave as lived experiences uniquely captured during the first peak of the pandemic? Methods: An international, cross-sectional survey was conducted among physicians, nurses, and allied personnel deployed or redeployed to ICUs in Utrecht, New York, and Dublin from April to May of 2020. Data were analyzed separately for the three sites. Quantitative data were treated for descriptive statistics; qualitative data were analyzed thematically and combined for general interpretations. Results: On the basis of 234, 83, and 34 responses (response rates of 68%, 48%, and 41% in Utrecht, New York, and Dublin, respectively), we found that the amount of supervision and the quality and safety of care were perceived as being lower than usual but still acceptable. The working atmosphere was overwhelmingly felt to be collaborative and supportive. Where IC-certified nurse-to-patient ratios had decreased most (Utrecht), nurses voiced criticism about supervision and quality of care. Continuity within the work environment, team composition, and informal ("curbside") consultations were critical mediators of success. Conclusion: In the exceptional circumstances encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic, many ICUs were managed by a composite workforce of IC-certified and redeployed personnel. Although supervision is critical for safe care, supervisory roles were not clearly related to the amount of prior ICU experience. Vital for satisfaction with the quality of care was the span of control for those who assumed supervisory roles (i.e., the ratio of certified to noncertified personnel). Stable teams that matched less experienced personnel with more experienced personnel; a strong, interprofessional, collaborative atmosphere; a robust culture of informal consultation; and judicious, more flexible use of rules and regulations proved to be essential.

Review of the Medical Student Performance Evaluation: analysis of the end-users' perspective across the specialties.

The Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) is an important tool of communication used by program directors to make decisions in the residency application process. To understand the perspective and usage of the MSPE across multiple medical specialties now and in anticipation of the planned changes in USMLE Step 1 score-reporting. A survey instrument including quantitative and qualitative measures was developed and piloted. The final survey was distributed to residency programs across 28 specialties in 2020 via the main contact on the ACGME listserv. Of the 28 specialties surveyed, at least one response was received from 26 (93%). Eight percent of all programs (364/4675) responded to the survey, with most respondents being program directors. Usage of the MSPE varied among specialties. Approximately 1/3 of end-users stated that the MSPE is very or extremely influential in their initial screening process. Slightly less than half agreed or strongly agreed that they trust the information to be an accurate representation of applicants, though slightly more than half agree that the MSPE will become more influential once USMLE Step 1 becomes pass/fail. Professionalism was rated as the most important component and noteworthy characteristics among the least important in the decision-making process. Performance in the internal medicine clerkship was rated as the most influential while neurology and psychiatry performances were rated as less influential. Overwhelmingly, respondents suggested that including comparative performance and/or class rank would make the MSPE more useful once USMLE Step 1 becomes pass/fail. MSPE end-users across a variety of specialties utilize this complex document in different ways and value it differentially in their decision-making processes. Despite this, continued mistrust of the MSPE persists. A better understanding of end-users' perceptions of the MSPE offers the UME community an opportunity to transform the MSPE into a highly valued, trusted document of communication.

Medical education using minimal technology: achieving professional development.

Background: Traditional journal clubs have been limited by the geography of participants. Web based modalities and social media platforms are now being used to bridge this barrier. Medical education journal club, given the diversity of its community would lend well to these platforms. To date there is very little published regarding online medical education journal clubs. Objective: To bridge geographical barriers; enhance interdisciplinary and interprofessional discussion and collaboration; and to provide opportunities for continuing medical education and faculty development; a monthly synchronous medical education journal club was created for faculty. Design/Methods: From April 2015 to November 2016, 11 online journal clubs were held for the faculty at Northwell Health and the Barbara and Donald Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell (Zucker SOM). All articles picked were relevant to medical education and participants were from multiple disciplines. Results: 74% of respondent participants agreed that the content covered during the sessions would positively impact personal and/or professional life and 58% of respondents reported that their overall knowledge/skill level changed positively. Conclusions: On-line medical education journal club can provide a valuable opportunity for continuing education and faculty development for both the participant and the presenter.

The Correlation of Stress in Residency With Future Stress and Burnout: A 10-Year Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Residents and practicing physicians displaying signs of stress is common. It is unclear whether stress during residency persists into professional practice or is associated with future burnout. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the persistence of stress after residency and its correlation with burnout in professional practice. We hypothesized that stress would linger and be correlated with future burnout. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted over 10 years using survey instruments with existing validity evidence. Residents over 3 academic years (2003-2005) were surveyed to measure stress in residency. Ten years later, these residents were sought out for a second survey measuring current stress and burnout in professional practice. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2005, 143 of 155 residents participated in the initial assessment (92% response rate). Of those, 21 were excluded in 2015 due to lack of contact information; follow-up surveys were distributed to 122 participants, and 81 responses were received (66% response rate and 57% of original participants). Emotional distress in residency correlated with emotional distress in professional practice (correlation coefficient = 0.45, P < .0001), emotional exhaustion (correlation coefficient = 0.30, P = .007), and depersonalization (correlation coefficient = 0.25, P = .029). Multivariate linear regression showed that emotional distress in residency was associated with future emotional distress (ß estimate = 0.57, P = .005) and depersonalization (ß estimate = 2.29, P = .028). CONCLUSIONS: We showed emotional distress as a resident persists into individuals' professional practice 10 years later and has an association with burnout in practice.

Resident dashboards: helping your clinical competency committee visualize trainees' key performance indicators.

INTRODUCTION: Under the Next Accreditation System, programs need to find ways to collect and assess meaningful reportable information on its residents to assist the program director regarding resident milestone progression. This paper discusses the process that one large Internal Medicine Residency Program used to provide both quantitative and qualitative data to its clinical competency committee (CCC) through the creation of a resident dashboard. METHODS: Program leadership at a large university-based program developed four new end of rotation evaluations based on the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and Accreditation Council of Graduated Medical Education's (ACGME) 22 reportable milestones. A resident dashboard was then created to pull together both milestone- and non-milestone-based quantitative data and qualitative data compiled from faculty, nurses, peers, staff, and patients. RESULTS: Dashboards were distributed to the members of the CCC in preparation for the semiannual CCC meeting. CCC members adjudicated quantitative and qualitative data to present their cohort of residents at the CCC meeting. Based on the committee's response, evaluation scores remained the same or were adjusted. Final milestone scores were then entered into the accreditation data system (ADS) on the ACGME website. CONCLUSIONS: The process of resident assessment is complex and should comprise both quantitative and qualitative data. The dashboard is a valuable tool for program leadership to use both when evaluating house staff on a semiannual basis at the CCC and to the resident in person.

Impact on house staff evaluation scores when changing from a Dreyfus- to a Milestone-based evaluation model: one internal medicine residency program's findings.

PURPOSE: As graduate medical education (GME) moves into the Next Accreditation System (NAS), programs must take a critical look at their current models of evaluation and assess how well they align with reporting outcomes. Our objective was to assess the impact on house staff evaluation scores when transitioning from a Dreyfus-based model of evaluation to a Milestone-based model of evaluation. Milestones are a key component of the NAS. METHOD: We analyzed all end of rotation evaluations of house staff completed by faculty for academic years 2010-2011 (pre-Dreyfus model) and 2011-2012 (post-Milestone model) in one large university-based internal medicine residency training program. Main measures included change in PGY-level average score; slope, range, and separation of average scores across all six Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies. RESULTS: Transitioning from a Dreyfus-based model to a Milestone-based model resulted in a larger separation in the scores between our three post-graduate year classes, a steeper progression of scores in the PGY-1 class, a wider use of the 5-point scale on our global end of rotation evaluation form, and a downward shift in the PGY-1 scores and an upward shift in the PGY-3 scores. CONCLUSIONS: For faculty trained in both models of assessment, the Milestone-based model had greater discriminatory ability as evidenced by the larger separation in the scores for all the classes, in particular the PGY-1 class.

Moving forward in GME reform: a 4 + 1 model of resident ambulatory training.

BACKGROUND: Traditional ambulatory training models have limitations in important domains, including opportunities for residents to learn, fragmentation of care delivery experience, and satisfaction with ambulatory experiences. New models of ambulatory training are needed. AIM: To compare the impact of a traditional ambulatory training model with a templated 4 + 1 model. SETTING: A large university-based internal medicine residency using three different training sites: a patient-centered medical home, a hospital-based ambulatory clinic, and community private practices. PARTICIPANTS: Residents, faculty, and administrative staff. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Development of a templated 4 + 1 model of residency where trainees do not attend to inpatient and outpatient responsibilities simultaneously. PROGRAM EVALUATION: A mixed-methods analysis of survey and nominal group data measuring three primary outcomes: 1) Perception of learning opportunities and quality of faculty teaching; 2) Reported fragmentation of care delivery experience; 3) Satisfaction with ambulatory experiences. Self-reported empanelment was a secondary outcome. Residents' learning opportunities increased (p = 0.007) but quality of faculty teaching was unchanged. Participants reported less fragmentation in the care residents provide patients in the inpatient and outpatient setting (p < 0.0001). Satisfaction with ambulatory training improved (p < 0.0001). Self-reported empanelment also increased (p < 0.0001). Results held true for residents, faculty, and staff at all three ambulatory training sites (p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: A 4 + 1 model increased resident time in ambulatory continuity clinic, enhanced learning opportunities, reduced fragmentation of care residents provide, and improved satisfaction with ambulatory experiences. More studies of similar models are needed to evaluate effects on additional trainee and patient outcomes.

Strength-based assessment of African-American adolescents with behavioral disorders.

The study examined consistencies and differences between 60 parents and their adolescent children with behavioral problems when rating the adolescents' strengths. The parents and teenagers agreed on most of the strength categories of the Behavior and Emotional Rating Scale. However, caretakers rated the adolescents as more involved in family life, while the adolescents rated themselves as more involved in school activities.