What Sustains Residency Program Directors: Social and Interpersonal Factors That Foster Recruitment and Support Retention.

Residency program directors' careers follow several trajectories. For many, the role is relatively short term, lasting 3 to 5 years, during which time the program director may gain educational and administrative experience. However, a sizeable cohort of program directors have remained as program directors for a decade or more, and some have filled the role for the majority of their careers. Over the years, the role of the academic residency program director has become increasingly affected by administrative responsibilities, including scheduling, documentation, and reporting requirements, along with increasing clinical demands that may conflict with ensuring resident wellness and lead to insufficient time to do the job. Burnout in this role is understandable. Given these obstacles, why should any young faculty member choose to become a training director? The authors of this commentary have each served as a residency program director for decades, aggregating approximately 150 years of program director experiences. Based on their collective reflections, the authors describe social and interpersonal aspects of the program director role that have enhanced their professional satisfaction and well-being. These include overseeing residency cycle events from initial interviews through graduation and certification; assuming leadership and social roles in academic departments; counseling, mentoring, and assisting residents with work-personal life difficulties; and helping trainees and programs weather a variety of traumatic circumstances. These life-enriching experiences can compensate for the challenging aspects of these roles and sustain program directors through exceptionally rewarding careers.

An Article-Based Format for Medical Specialty and Subspecialty Maintenance of Certification.

INTRODUCTION: This article describes an article-based alternative for maintenance of certification that the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology developed and began pilot testing in 2019. The rationale for and components of the pilot program are presented along with data on participant performance and feedback from the first year of implementation in three primary specialties (neurology, child neurology, and psychiatry) and one subspecialty (child and adolescent psychiatry). METHODS: Evaluation of the pilot program was guided by a widely used validity framework. Data were collected that addressed the five categories of validity evidence: content, response process, internal structure, relation to other variables, and consequences. RESULTS: Enrollment ranged from 66.7% for psychiatrists to 75.3% for child neurologists. For the 2019 cohort, the pass rates ranged from 92.6% for child and adolescent psychiatry to 98.7% for neurology, and very small numbers of diplomates failed or did not complete the process. For psychiatrists, there was a modest, but significant, relationship between performance on previous and subsequent maintenance of certification examinations. Ninety percent or more agreed that: the articles were easy to access and helpful to their practices; the mini-tests were a fair assessment of their understanding of the articles; and their test-taking experience was satisfactory. DISCUSSION: Most eligible diplomates participated in the article-based pilot project, and they strongly preferred this format to the traditional multiple-choice examinations. Most important, the pilot was perceived to be a meaningful and relevant learning activity that had a positive effect on patient care.

Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry and the Role of Certification.

In the early twentieth century, the medical profession focused on the development of specialties and specialty/subspecialty training. Parallel to this development was the establishment of certifying boards, which can evaluate and attest to a physician's mastery of a set of knowledge and skills; the goal is to provide assurance to patients and the public of a certain guarantee of quality of care. In the early decades of "board certification," the examination was a one-time, relatively high-stakes process that assessed knowledge, and often certain skills and clinical reasoning.

Psychiatry Clinical Skills Evaluation: a Multisite Study of Validity.

OBJECTIVE: Since 2007, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) has required that residency programs conduct a specific clinical skills evaluation (CSE) of physician-patient interaction, psychiatric interview and mental status examination, and case presentation on a directly observed patient interview as a prerequisite for certification. The authors examined a multisite database of CSE assessments to investigate the validity of the evaluation. METHODS: The authors collected 1156 CSE assessments from 4 residency programs conducted over a 6-year period, compared scoring patterns among the programs, score improvement over 4 years of residency, time and number of CSEs required to meet ABPN requirements, and patterns of scoring for individual faculty evaluators. RESULTS: The distribution of scores within each of the 4 programs showed similar, but nonidentical patterns. The number of CSEs required to meet the ABPN standards (3.5) and the point in training at which this was completed (late PGY-2) were the same in all programs. CSE scores were highly correlated with year of training but were not correlated with performance on an unrelated cognitive examination. Individual faculty members tended to stay within a moderate range of scores over multiple residents, partially attributable to year of training. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these findings support the validity of the CSE as a measure of residents' clinical skills in the specified areas and demonstrate a moderate-high degree of consistency in the scoring of the CSE across these 4 programs.

The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Schizophrenia.

(Reprinted with permission from The American Journal of Psychiatry 2020; 177:868-872).

The effect of an end-of-clerkship review session on NBME psychiatry subject exam scores.

OBJECTIVE: The NBME Psychiatry Subject Examination (PSE) is used throughout North America to test MS-III end-of-clerkship knowledge; yet, literature on PSE preparatory methods remains sparse. This study assesses the effect of a curriculum intervention on NBME PSE scores. METHOD: An optional 1.5-hour review session and accompanying fill-in-the-blank handout was offered to 62 MS-III students 3 days before their exam. Students who did not attend the session were e-mailed the handout with completed answers. The primary outcome measure was a change in scores, with students in the previous year serving as the control group. RESULTS: The average raw PSE score of students offered the review session was 84.53, versus 77.15 for matched controls (p <0.0001). The effect size for the intervention was 0.89. CONCLUSION: This study may suggest that offering a comprehensive review session to third-year medical students 3 days before their NBME PSE significantly improves their scores.