RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Internal medicine physicians are often the first providers to encounter patients with a new diagnosis of tuberculosis. Given the public health risks of missed tuberculosis cases, assessing internal medicine residents' ability to diagnose tuberculosis is important. METHODS: Internal medicine resident knowledge and practice patterns in pulmonary tuberculosis diagnosis at 7 academic hospitals were assessed utilizing (a) a 10-item validated pulmonary tuberculosis diagnosis assessment tool and (b) a retrospective chart review of 343 patients who underwent a pulmonary tuberculosis evaluation while admitted to a resident-staffed internal medicine or infectious disease service. Our primary outcomes were the mean score and percentage of correct responses per assessment tool question, and the percentage of patients who had Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-recommended tuberculosis diagnostic tests obtained. RESULTS: Of the 886 residents who received the assessment, 541 responded, yielding a response rate of 61%. The mean score on the assessment tool (SD) was 4.4 (1.6), and the correct response rate was 57% (311/541) or less on 9 of 10 questions. On chart review, each recommended test was obtained for ≤43% (148/343) of patients, other than chest x-ray (328/343; 96%). A nucleic acid amplification test was obtained for 18% (62/343) of patients, whereas 24% (83/343) had only 1 respiratory sample obtained. Twenty patients were diagnosed with tuberculosis. CONCLUSIONS: Significant knowledge and practice gaps exist in internal medicine residents' abilities to diagnose tuberculosis. As residents represent the future providers who will be evaluating patients with possible tuberculosis, such deficiencies must be addressed.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Assessing residents by direct observation is the preferred assessment method for infrequently encountered subspecialty topics, but this is logistically challenging. OBJECTIVE: We developed an assessment framework for internal medicine (IM) residents in subspecialty topics, using tuberculosis diagnosis for proof of concept. METHODS: We used a 4-step process at 8 academic medical centers that entailed (1) creating a 10-item knowledge assessment tool; (2) pilot testing on a sample of 129 IM residents and infectious disease fellow volunteers to evaluate validity evidence; (3) implementing the final tool among 886 resident volunteers; and (4) assessing outcomes via retrospective chart review. Outcomes included tool score, item performance, and rates of obtaining recommended diagnostics. RESULTS: Following tool development, 10 infectious disease experts provided content validity. Pilot testing showed higher mean scores for fellows compared with residents (7 [SD = 1.8] versus 3.8 [SD = 1.7], respectively, P < .001) and a satisfactory Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (0.72). Implementation of the tool revealed a 14-minute (SD = 2.0) mean completion time, 61% (541 of 886) response rate, 4.4 (SD = 1.6) mean score, and ≤ 57% correct response rate for 9 of 10 items. On chart review (n = 343), the rate of obtaining each recommended test was ≤ 43% (113 of 261), except for chest x-rays (96%, 328 of 343). CONCLUSIONS: Our assessment framework revealed knowledge and practice gaps in tuberculosis diagnosis in IM residents. Adopting this approach may help ensure assessment is not limited to frequently encountered topics.
