A National Survey of Undergraduate Clinical Education in Internal Medicine

BACKGROUND: In the present milieu of rapid innovation in undergraduate medical education at US medical schools, the current structure and composition of clinical education in Internal Medicine (IM) is not clear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the current composition of undergraduate clinical education structure in IM. DESIGN: National annual Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-nine clerkship directors at all Liaison Committee on Medical Education accredited US medical schools with CDIM membership as of September 1, 2017. MAIN MEASURES: IM core clerkship and post-core clerkship structure descriptions, including duration, educational models, inpatient experiences, ambulatory experiences, and requirements. KEY RESULTS: The survey response rate was 83% (107/ 129). The majority of schools utilized one core IM clerkshipmodel (67%) and continued to use a traditional block model for a majority of their students (84%). Overall 26% employed a Longitudinal Integrated Clerkship model and 14% employed a shared block model for some students. The mean inpatient duration was 7.0 ± 1.7 weeks (range 3–11 weeks) and 94% of clerkships stipulated that students spend some inpatient time on general medicine. IM-specific ambulatory experiences were not required for students in 65% of IM core clerkship models. Overall 75% of schools did not require an advanced IM clinical experience after the core clerkship; however, 66% of schools reported a high percentage of students (> 40%) electing to take an IM sub-internship. About half of schools (48%) did not require overnight call or night float during the clinical IM sub-internship. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are diverse core IM clerkship models, the majority of IM core clerkships are still traditional block models. The mean inpatient duration is 7 weeks and 65% of IM core clerkship models did not require IM-specific ambulatory education

Outcomes for Resident-Identified High-Risk Patients and Resident Perspectives of Year-End Continuity Clinic Handoffs

BACKGROUND: Many patients nationwide change their primary care physician (PCP) when internal medicine (IM) residents graduate. Few studies have examined this handoff. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient outcomes and resident perspectives after the year-end continuity clinic handoff DESIGN: Retrospective cohort PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent a year-end clinic handoff in July 2010 and a comparison group of all other resident clinic patients from 2009-2011. PGY2 IM residents surveyed from 2010-2011. MEASUREMENTS: Percent of high-risk patients after the clinic handoff scheduled for an appointment, who saw their assigned PCP, lost to follow-up, or had an acute visit (ED or hospitalization). Perceptions of PGY2 IM residents surveyed after receiving a clinic handoff. RESULTS: Thirty graduating residents identified 258 high-risk patients. While nearly all patients (97 %) were scheduled, 29 % missed or cancelled their first new PCP visit. Only 44 % of patients saw the correct PCP and six months later, one-fifth were lost to follow-up. Patients not seen by a new PCP after the handoff were less likely to have appropriate follow-up for pending tests (0 % vs. 63 %, P<0.001). A higher mean no show rate (NSR) was observed among patients who missed their first new PCP visit (22 % vs. 16 % NSR, p<0.001) and those lost to follow-up (21 % vs. 17 % NSR, p=0.019). While 47 % of residents worried about missing important data during the handoff, 47 % reported that they do not perceive patients as "theirs" until they are seen by them in clinic. CONCLUSIONS: While most patients were scheduled for appointments after a clinic handoff, many did not see the correct resident and one-fifth were lost to follow-up. Patients who miss appointments are especially at risk of poor clinic handoff outcomes. Future efforts should improve patient attendance to their first new PCP visit and increase PCP ownership

Feedback as dialogue for faculty: From peer review to peer-to-peer coaching

Drawing on the themes identified by Watling et al. regarding feedback in peer review, the authors consider how their findings could be applied more broadly to faculty feedback