ObjectiveTo examine and compare perceptions between resident-trainees and faculty-educators on goals and reasons why resident trainees choose certain subspecialty elective rotations.Methods In June 2013 residents and faculty-educators at a large tertiary care academic medical center were surveyed regarding perceived resident goals for subspecialty electives. Each group was sent a different electronic survey of parallel questions assessing agreement on an ordered scale with statements about which factors impacted resident choice.ResultsThe survey was sent to 154 residents and had 75 (49%) respondents, as well as 20 faculty-educators with 12 (60%) respondents. Residents and faculty did not differ in their responses that electives were chosen to fill perceived knowledge gaps (exact Cochran-Armitage p = .51). However, educators and residents significantly varied in the degree to which they thought resident choice was based on networking within the field (exact Cochran-Armitage p = .01), auditioning for fellowship (exact Cochran-Armitage p < .01), or exploring career options (exact Cochran-Armitage p = .01), with educators overestimating the degree to which these impacted resident choice. ConclusionsResident trainees and faculty educators agree that subspecialty electives are most frequently chosen in order to meet resident educational goals, highlighting the importance of developing and delivering high quality subspecialty curricular content for the internal medicine resident learner during electives. Many residents choose electives for career development reasons, but faculty educators overestimate this motivation.
BACKGROUND: Continuity clinics are a critical component of outpatient internal medicine training. Little is known about the population of patients cared for by residents and how these physicians perform. OBJECTIVES: To compare resident and faculty performance on standard population health measures. To identify potential associations with differences in performance, specifically medical complexity, psychosocial vulnerability, and rates of patient loss. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Large academic primary care clinic caring for 40,000 patients. One hundred ten internal medicine residents provide primary care for 9,000 of these patients; the remainder are cared for by faculty. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive analysis using review of the medical record and hospital administrative data. MAIN MEASURES: We compared resident and faculty performance on standard population health measures, including cancer screening rates, chronic disease care, acute and chronic medical complexity, psychosocial vulnerability, and rates of patient loss. We evaluated the success of resident transition by measuring rates of kept continuity visits 18 months after graduation. KEY RESULTS: Performance on all clinical outcomes was significantly better for faculty compared to residents. Despite similar levels of medical complexity compared to faculty patients, resident patients had significantly higher levels of psychosocial vulnerability across all measured domains, including health literacy, economic vulnerability, psychiatric illness burden, high-risk behaviors, and patient engagement. Resident patients experienced higher rates of patient loss than faculty patients (38.5 vs. 18.8%) with only 46.5% of resident patients with a kept continuity appointment in the practice 18 months after graduation. CONCLUSIONS: In this large academic practice, resident performance on standard population health measures was significantly lower than faculty. This may be explained in part by the burden of psychosocial vulnerability of their patients and systems that do not effectively transition patients after graduation. These findings present an opportunity to improve structural equity for these vulnerable patients and developing physicians.
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.