Importance The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted graduate medical education, compelling training programs to abruptly transition to virtual educational formats despite minimal experience or proficiency. We surveyed residents from a national sample of internal medicine (IM) residency programs to describe their experiences with the transition to virtual morning report (MR), a highly valued core educational conference. Objective Assess resident views about virtual MR content and teaching strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design Anonymous, web-based survey. Participants Residents from 14 academically affiliated IM residency programs. Main Measures The 25-item survey on virtual MR included questions on demographics; frequency and reason for attending; opinions on who should attend and teach; how the virtual format affects the learning environment; how virtual MR compares to in-person MR with regard to participation, engagement, and overall education; and whether virtual MR should continue after in-person conferences can safely resume. The survey included a combination of Likert-style, multiple option, and open-ended questions. Results Six hundred fifteen residents (35%) completed the survey, with a balanced sample of interns (39%), second-year (31%), and third-year (30%) residents. When comparing their overall assessment of in-person and virtual MR formats, 42% of residents preferred in-person, 18% preferred virtual, and 40% felt they were equivalent. Most respondents endorsed better peer-engagement, camaraderie, and group participation with in-person MR. Chat boxes, video participation, audience response systems, and smart boards/tablets enhanced respondents’ educational experience during virtual MR. Most respondents (72%) felt that the option of virtual MR should continue when it is safe to resume in-person conferences. Conclusions Virtual MR was a valued alternative to traditional in-person MR during the COVID-19 pandemic. Residents feel that the virtual platform offers unique educational benefits independent of and in conjunction with in-person conferences. Residents support the integration of a virtual platform into the delivery of MR in the future. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06963-7.
Purpose To measure changes in markers of resident well-being over time as progressive work hour limitations (WHL) were enforced, and to investigate resident perceptions of the 2011 WHL. Method A survey study of internal medicine residents was conducted at the University of Washington’s multi-hospital residency program in 2012. The survey included validated well-being questions: the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the two-question PRIME-MD depression screen, and career satisfaction questions. Chi-squared tests were used to compare 2012 well-being questionnaire responses to nearly identical surveys conducted in 2001 and 2004 at the same institution. In addition, residents were asked to rate the impact of WHL on resident well-being, education, and patient care, and to state preferences for future WHL. Results Significantly different proportions of residents met burnout criteria across time, with fewer meeting criteria in 2012 than in 2001 (2001: 76% [87/115]; 2004: 64% [75/118]; 2012: 61% [68/112]; P = .039). Depression screening results also differed across time, with fewer screening positive in 2012 than in 2004 (2001: 45% [52/115]; 2004: 55% [65/118]; 2012 [35/112]: 31%; P = .001). Residents, especially seniors, reported perceived negative impacts of WHL on their well-being, education, and patient care. Most seniors favored reverting to the pre-July 2011 system of WHL. Interns were more divided. Conclusions Validated measures of resident well-being changed across the three time points measured. Residents had the lowest rates of burnout and depression in 2012. Resident perceptions of the 2011 WHL, however, were generally negative.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.