Has Interprofessional Education Changed Learning Preferences? A National Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how changes in curriculum, accreditation standards, and certification and licensure competencies impacted how medical students and physician residents value interprofessional team and patient-centered care. PRIMARY DATA SOURCE: The Department of Veterans Affairs Learners' Perceptions Survey (2003-2013). The nationally administered survey asked a representative sample of 56,569 U.S. medical students and physician residents, with a comparison group of 78,038 nonphysician trainees, to rate satisfaction with 28 elements, in two overall domains, describing their clinical learning experiences at VA medical centers. STUDY DESIGN: Value preferences were scored as independent adjusted associations between an element (interprofessional team, patient-centered preceptor) and the respective overall domain (clinical learning environment, faculty, and preceptors) relative to a referent element (quality of clinical care, quality of preceptor). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Physician trainees valued interprofessional (14 percent vs. 37 percent, p < .001) and patient-centered learning (21 percent vs. 36 percent, p < .001) less than their nonphysician counterparts. Physician preferences for interprofessional learning showed modest increases over time (2.5 percent/year, p < .001), driven mostly by internal medicine and surgery residents. Preferences did not increase with trainees' academic progress. CONCLUSIONS: Despite changes in medical education, physician trainees continue to lag behind their nonphysician counterparts in valuing experience with interprofessional team and patient-centered care.

The learners' perceptions survey-primary care: assessing resident perceptions of internal medicine continuity clinics and patient-centered care.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) implemented a national patient-centered care initiative that organized primary care into interdisciplinary teams of health care professionals to provide patient-centered, continuous, and coordinated care. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the discriminate validity of the Learners' Perceptions Survey-Primary Care (LPS-PC), a tool designed to measure residents' perceptions about their primary and patient-centered care experiences. METHODS: Between October 2010 and June 2011, the LPS-PC was administered to Loma Linda University Medical Center internal medicine residents assigned to continuity clinics at the VA Loma Linda Healthcare System (VALLHCS), a university setting, or the county hospital. Adjusted differences in satisfaction ratings across settings and over domains (patient- and family-centered care, faculty and preceptors, learning, clinical, work and physical environments, and personal experience) were computed using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: Our response rate was 86% (77 of 90). Residents were more satisfied with patient- and family-centered care at the VALLHCS than at either the university or county (P < .001). However, faculty and preceptors (odds ratio [OR]  =  1.53), physical (OR  =  1.29), and learning (OR  =  1.28) environments had more impact on overall resident satisfaction than patient- and family-centered care (OR  =  1.08). CONCLUSIONS: The LPS-PC demonstrated discriminate validity to assess residents' perceptions of their patient-centered clinical training experience across outpatient primary care settings at an internal medicine residency program. The largest difference in scores was the patient- and family-centered care domain, in which residents rated the VALLHCS much higher than the university or county sites.

Training satisfaction for subspecialty fellows in internal medicine: findings from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Learners' Perceptions Survey.

BACKGROUND: Learner satisfaction assessment is critical in the design and improvement of training programs. However, little is known about what influences satisfaction and whether trainee specialty is correlated. A national comparison of satisfaction among internal medicine subspecialty fellows in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides a unique opportunity to examine educational factors associated with learner satisfaction. We compared satisfaction across internal medicine fellows by subspecialty and compared factors associated with satisfaction between procedural versus non-procedural subspecialty fellows, using data from the Learners' Perceptions Survey (LPS), a validated survey tool. METHODS: We surveyed 2,221 internal medicine subspecialty fellows rotating through VA between 2001 and 2008. Learners rated their overall training satisfaction on a 100-point scale, and on a five-point Likert scale ranked satisfaction with items within six educational domains: learning, clinical, working and physical environments; personal experience; and clinical faculty/preceptor. RESULTS: Procedural and non-procedural fellows reported similar overall satisfaction scores (81.2 and 81.6). Non-procedural fellows reported higher satisfaction with 79 of 81 items within the 6 domains and with the domain of physical environment (4.06 vs. 3.85, p <0.001). Satisfaction with clinical faculty/preceptor and personal experience had the strongest impact on overall satisfaction for both. Procedural fellows reported lower satisfaction with physical environment. CONCLUSIONS: Internal medicine fellows are highly satisfied with their VA training. Nonprocedural fellows reported higher satisfaction with most items. For both procedural and non-procedural fellows, clinical faculty/preceptor and personal experience have the strongest impact on overall satisfaction.

Studying the effects of ACGME duty hours limits on resident satisfaction: results from VA learners' perceptions survey.

BACKGROUND: As the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) deliberates over further limiting duty hours of graduate medical education (GME) trainees, few large-scale studies have shown residents to be satisfied with the effect the 2003 standards have had on clinical care, education outcomes, or working environments. This study measures the effect of the 2003 duty hours limits on resident-reported satisfaction with GME training during their rotations through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers from 2001 through 2007. METHOD: Self-reported satisfaction with clinical care and education environments were assessed by comparing responses to VA's annual Learners' Perceptions Survey administered before 2003 with responses administered after 2003. To measure duty hours effects on satisfaction, before-after differences were adjusted for covariate biases modeled after an exhaustive covariate search with 10-fold cross-validation. Because nonteaching controls are not available in satisfaction studies, we used a robust differencing variable technique to control before-after differences for trend biases in the simultaneous presence of missing data and possible model misspecification. RESULTS: There were 19,605 responders. Adjusting for covariate and trend biases, after the 2003 ACGME standards, 25% more residents in medicine specialties reported satisfaction with VA clinical environment and 11% more with VA preceptors and faculty. For surgery, 33% more residents reported satisfaction with VA clinical environment and 12% more with VA preceptors and faculty. Satisfaction with working environment was mixed. CONCLUSIONS: The 2003 ACGME duty hours standards were associated with improved satisfaction for resident clinical training and learning environments.

Measuring the intensity of resident supervision in the department of veterans affairs: the resident supervision index.

PURPOSE: To develop a survey instrument designed to quantify supervision by attending physicians in nonprocedural care and to assess the instrument's feasibility and reliability. METHOD: In 2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Academic Affiliations convened an expert panel to adopt a working definition of attending supervision in nonprocedural patient care and to construct a survey to quantify it. Feasibility was field-tested on residents and their supervising attending physicians at primary care internal medicine clinics at the VA Loma Linda Healthcare System in their encounters with randomly selected outpatients diagnosed with either major depressive disorder or diabetes. The authors assessed both interrater concurrent reliability and test-retest reliability. RESULTS: The expert panel adopted the VA's definition of resident supervision and developed the Resident Supervision Index (RSI) to measure supervision in terms of residents' case understanding, attending physicians' contributions to patient care through feedback to the resident, and attending physicians' time (minutes). The RSI was field-tested on 60 residents and 37 attending physicians for 148 supervision episodes from 143 patient encounters. Consent rates were 94% for residents and 97% for attending physicians; test-retest reliability intraclass correlations (ICCs) were 0.93 and 0.88, respectively. Concurrent reliability between residents' and attending physicians' reported time was an ICC of 0.69. CONCLUSIONS: The RSI is a feasible and reliable measure of resident supervision that is intended for research studies in graduate medical education focusing on education outcomes, as well as studies assessing quality of care, patient health outcomes, care costs, and clinical workload.

Measuring progressive independence with the resident supervision index: theoretical approach.

BACKGROUND: Graduate medical education is based on an on-the-job training model in which residents provide clinical care under supervision. The traditional method is to offer residents graduated levels of responsibility that will prepare them for independent practice. However, if progressive independence from supervision exceeds residents' progressive professional development, patient outcomes may be at risk. Leaders in graduate medical education have called for "optimal" supervision, yet few studies have conceptually defined what optimal supervision means and whether optimal care is theoretically compatible with progressive independence, nor have they developed a test for progressive independence. OBJECTIVE: This research develops theory and analytic models as part of the Resident Supervision Index to quantify the intensity of supervision. METHODS: We introduce an explicit set of assumptions for an ideal patient-centered theory of optimal supervision of resident-provided care. A critical assumption is that informed attending staff will use available resources to optimize patient outcomes first and foremost, with residents gaining clinical competencies by contributing to optimal care. Next, we derive mathematically the consequences of these assumptions as theoretical results. RESULTS: Under optimal supervision, (1) patient outcome is expected to be no worse than if residents were not involved, (2) supervisors will avoid undersupervising residents (when patients are at increased risk for poor outcomes) or oversupervising residents (when residents miss clinical opportunities to practice care), (3) optimal patient outcomes will be compatible with progressive independence, (4) progressive development can be inferred from progressive independence whenever residents contribute to patient care, and (5) analytic models that test for progressive independence will emphasize adjusting the association between length of graduate medical education training and supervision for case complexity and clinic workload, but not patient health outcomes. CONCLUSION: An explicit theoretical framework is critical to measure scientifically progressive independence from supervision using graduate medical education data.

Measuring progressive independence with the resident supervision index: empirical approach.

BACKGROUND: A Resident Supervision Index (RSI) developed by our research team quantifies the intensity of resident supervision in graduate medical education, with the goal of testing for progressive independence. The 4-part RSI method includes a survey instrument for staff and residents (RSI Inventory), a strategy to score survey responses, a theoretical framework (patient centered optimal supervision), and a statistical model that accounts for the presence or absence of supervision and the intensity of patient care. METHODS: The RSI Inventory data came from 140 outpatient encounters involving 57 residents and 37 attending physicians during a 3-month period at a Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic. Responses are scored to quantitatively measure the intensity of resident supervision across 10 levels of patient services (staff is absent, is present, participated, or provided care with or without a resident), case discussion (resident-staff interaction), and oversight (staff reviewed case, reviewed medical chart, consulted with staff, or assessed patient). Scores are analyzed by level and for patient care using a 2-part model (supervision initiated [yes or no] versus intensity once supervision was initiated). RESULTS: All resident encounters had patient care supervision, resident oversight, or both. Consistent with the progressive independence hypothesis, residents were 1.72 (P  =  .019) times more likely to be fully responsible for patient care with each additional postgraduate year. Decreasing case complexity, increasing clinic workload, and advanced nonmedical degrees among attending staff were negatively associated with supervision intensity, although associations varied by supervision level. CONCLUSIONS: These data are consistent with the progressive independence hypothesis in graduate medical education and offer empirical support for the 4-part RSI method to quantify the intensity of resident supervision for research, program evaluation, and resident assessment purposes. Before informing policy, however, more scientific research in actual teaching settings is needed to better understand the relationships among patient outcomes, clinic workload, case complexity, and graduate medical education experience in resident supervision and professional development.

Factors determining medical students' and residents' satisfaction during VA-based training: findings from the VA Learners' Perceptions Survey.

PURPOSE: To compare medical students' and physician residents' satisfaction with Veterans Affairs (VA) training to determine the factors that were most strongly associated with trainee satisfaction ratings. METHOD: Each year from 2001 to 2006, all medical students and residents in VA teaching facilities were invited to complete the Learners' Perceptions Survey. Participants rated their overall training satisfaction on a 100-point scale and ranked specific satisfaction in four separate educational domains (learning environment, clinical faculty, working environment, and physical environment) on a five-point Likert scale. Each domain was composed of unique items. RESULTS: A total of 6,527 medical students and 16,583 physician residents responded to the survey. The overall training satisfaction scores for medical students and physician residents were 84 and 79, respectively (P < .001), with significant differences in satisfaction reported across the training continuum. For both medical students and residents, the rating of each of the four educational domains was statistically significantly associated with the overall training satisfaction score (P < .001). The learning environment domain had the strongest association with overall training satisfaction score, followed by the clinical preceptor, working environment, and physical environment domains; no significant differences were found between medical students and physician residents in the rank order. Satisfaction with quality of care and faculty teaching contributed significantly to training satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Factors that influence training satisfaction were similar for residents and medical students. The domain with the highest association was the learning environment; quality of care was a key item within this domain.

A data accounting system for clinical investigators.

Clinical investigators often preprocess, process, and analyze their data without benefit of formally organized research centers to oversee data management. This article outlines a practical three-file structure to help guide these investigators track and document their data through processing and analyses. The proposed process can be implemented without additional training or specialized software. Thus, it is particularly well suited for research projects with small budgets or limited access to viable research/data coordinating centers.

The Veterans Affairs Learners' Perceptions Survey: the foundation for educational quality improvement.

PURPOSE: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) supports 8,700 resident positions nationally to enhance quality of care for veterans and to educate physicians. This study sought to establish a yearly quality indicator to identify and follow strengths and opportunities for improvement in VA clinical training programs. METHOD: In March 2001, the VA Learners' Perceptions Survey, a validated 57-item questionnaire, was mailed to 3,338 residents registered at 130 VA facilities. They were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with the VA clinical training experience and their satisfaction in four domains: faculty/preceptor, learning, working, and physical environments using a five-point Likert scale. Questionnaires were received from 1,775 residents (53.2%). A full analysis was conducted using 1,436 of these questionnaires, whose respondents were categorized in four training programs: medicine (n = 706), surgery (n = 291), subspecialty (n = 266), and psychiatry (n = 173). RESULTS: On a scale of 0 to 100, residents gave their clinical training experience an average score of 79. Eighty-four percent would have recommended VA training to peers, and 81% would have chosen VA training again. Overall, 87% were satisfied with their faculty/preceptors, 78% with the learning environment, and 67% with the working and physical environments. The survey was sensitive to differences in satisfaction among the trainee groups, with residents in internal medicine (IM) the least satisfied. CONCLUSION: The VA Learners' Perceptions Survey is the first validated survey to address comprehensive satisfaction issues in clinical training. The survey highlights strengths and opportunities for improvement in VA clinical training and is the first step toward improving education.