Development and Evaluation of a Direct Care Hospitalist Service Internal Medicine Sub-internship Rotation.

BACKGROUND: Direct Care Hospitalist Services (DCHS) can increase internal medicine (IM) sub-internship rotation availability while providing hospitalists additional teaching opportunities. AIM: Implement and evaluate a DCHS sub-internship. SETTING: Urban Academic Medical School. PARTICIPANTS: IM sub-interns, hospitalists. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: One to two sub-interns were paired with three hospitalists on 3 weeks of day service and five nights in an apprenticeship model. Sub-interns admitted and followed patients on days and cross-covered and admitted on nights. PROGRAM EVALUATION: DCHS sub-intern rotation satisfaction and skills preparedness were surveyed over 2 years. Sub-interns rotating on resident-covered service (RCS) were surveyed in year 2, and results compared to DCHS. Hospitalists were surveyed year 1 to rate satisfaction. Year 2 DCHS cross-cover paging data was tabulated to evaluate clinical content. DCHS and RCS sub-interns rated satisfaction and preparedness similarly. DCHS sub-interns rated time management (3.86 vs 4.33, p = 0.19) and calling consults (4.4 vs 4.8, p = 0.56) lower, but cross-cover higher (4.14 to 3.67, p = 0.34) than RCS. DCHS sub-interns averaged 39.4 (SD 4.1) nightly cross-cover pages with most related to acute symptoms (46%). Hospitalists were highly satisfied with their rotation experience. DISCUSSION: Sub-interns were highly satisfied with DCHS sub-internship. Future work will target gaps in preparedness for urgent patient care issues.

The Academic Catalyst Group: A Tactical Framework for Working Groups to Enhance Clinician-Educator Academic Career Development.

ABSTRACT: Working groups have tremendous potential to contribute to the academic career development of early-career clinician-educators. These individuals may find themselves engaged in many different working spaces, including working groups or committees such as those found within specialty societies or professional organizations. Such working groups may be underrecognized opportunities for academic skill building and professional growth because they are often characterized as primarily service-oriented, citizenship, or administrative work. Working groups can use their natural cross-institutional collaborations for mentorship and externalization-2 key building blocks for academic success that frequently represent challenges for early-career clinician-educators. In this article, the authors review common challenges that early-career clinician-educators may encounter during their academic development and propose a 3-step tactical framework, the academic catalyst group, that working group leaders can apply to groups to purposefully enhance professional development for clinician-educators. The framework urges working group leaders and members to conceptualize and develop academic catalyst groups as communities of practice by (1) assembling with intention, (2) mining the mission, and (3) finding an easy win. This framework can inspire working group leaders to align their work with academic career development and ultimately foster career growth for all group members.

A Qualitative Study of Internal Medicine Subspecialty Fellowship Program Directors' Perspectives on Short-Term Hospitalist Employment Prior to Fellowship.

Background Some internal medicine (IM) residents pursuing subspecialty training choose short-term hospitalist employment prior to fellowship, or "pre-fellowship hospitalist years." Residency and fellowship program directors (PDs) advise residents on this decision, but PD experience with fellows pursuing pre-fellowship hospitalist years and the impact on fellowship applications is unknown. Objective We aimed to explore perceptions of fellowship PDs regarding experience with fellows who pursued pre-fellowship hospitalist years, including perceived effects on how such years affect fellowship application candidacy. Methods A purposive sample of 20 fellowship PDs in the most highly competitive and commonly selected IM fellowships (cardiology, pulmonology/critical care medicine, hematology/oncology, gastroenterology) from 5 academic institutions were approached for participation in fall 2021. Interviews included semi-structured questions about pre-fellowship hospitalist employment. Utilizing rapid qualitative analysis, interview transcripts were summarized and reviewed to identify themes and subthemes describing fellowship PDs' perspectives of pre-fellowship hospitalist years. Results Sixteen fellowship PDs (80%) participated. PDs identified 4 major themes as important for trainees considering pre-fellowship hospitalist years: (1) Explain the "Why"-why the year was pursued; (2) Characteristics of the Hospitalist Position-what type of employment; (3) The Challenges-potential concerns faced with pre-fellowship hospitalist years; and (4) Describe the "What"-the experience's contribution to resident professional development. Conclusions Fellowship PDs in 4 competitive IM subspecialities placed a strong emphasis on explaining a clear, logical reason for seeking short-term hospitalist employment prior to fellowship, describing how it fits into the overall career trajectory, and selecting activities that demonstrate continued commitment to the subspecialty.

Develop Your CORE2 for Career Flourishing: A Career Development Workshop for Hospitalists.

Introduction: Appreciative inquiry harnesses an individual's strengths to realize positive change, and a flourishing-focused mindset emphasizes engagement, social connectivity, and seeking meaningful work. Though the impact of these models on physician well-being and career planning has been evaluated in graduate medical education, their integration into career development initiatives for faculty has been limited. We designed a workshop to nurture hospitalist career development, based on our CORE2 conceptual framework (character strengths, overall vision, role assessment, explicit goals, and evaluation). Methods: We presented the workshop at the 2022 and 2023 Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) annual conferences. This 1.5-hour workshop comprised four modules and three small-group activities designed to help participants identify their signature character strengths, draft a professional vision statement, prioritize professional roles, and develop SMART goals aligned with these roles. Results: At the 2023 SHM annual conference, 36 participants attended the workshop, and 32 (89%) completed pre- and postworkshop surveys. After workshop completion, participants' self-assessed familiarity with their signature character strengths, knowledge of evidence-based principles to develop SMART goals, and confidence in their ability to write a vision statement and SMART goals all increased significantly (p < .05). Discussion: This workshop provides a valuable framework for self-directed longitudinal career development and reflection. We build on prior curricula on educator identity formation by guiding participants from identity definition to professional vision development to professional role evaluation to aligned goal creation and iterative evaluation. Our workshop's principles are readily generalizable to clinician-educators across medical disciplines.

Management of the Electronic Health Record Inbox: Results From a National Survey of Internal Medicine Program Directors.

Background Internal medicine (IM) resident physicians spend a considerable amount of time managing their inbox as part of their longitudinal continuity clinic experience. There are no standardized guidelines for how programs should train, monitor, or supervise residents in this type of patient care. Objective To understand how IM residency programs educate, monitor, and supervise resident electronic health record (EHR) inbox management as part of their longitudinal continuity clinic and determine whether patient safety events have occurred due to EHR inbox-related patient care decisions made by unsupervised resident physicians. Methods In August 2021, 439 program directors at accredited US IM residency programs who were members of the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine (APDIM) were asked 12 questions developed by the study authors and APDIM survey committee members regarding resident EHR inbox management as part of the annual APDIM survey. Results Two hundred and sixty-seven (61%) PDs responded. The majority (224 of 267, 84%) of programs provided guidelines for expected message response times; less than half (115, 43%) monitored timeliness metrics. Only half (135; 51%) of programs required faculty supervision of inbox messages for all residents; 28% (76) did not require supervision for any residents. Twenty-one percent of PDs (56) reported awareness of a patient safety event occurring due to an unsupervised resident inbox-related patient care decision. Conclusions Substantial variability exists in how IM residency programs train, monitor, supervise, and provide coverage for resident inbox work. Program directors are aware of patient safety events resulting from unsupervised resident inbox management.

Multicenter Study of Optional In-Person Visits to Residency Programs After Virtual Interviews.

Background Compared to in-person recruitment, virtual interviewing reduces costs and promotes equity. However, many residency applicants believe that visiting programs helps inform their rank decisions. Objective We assessed the feasibility of and stakeholder opinions about optional in-person visits after virtual interviewing and program rank list finalization. Methods Six internal medicine residency programs conducted virtual recruitment in 2022-2023 and finalized their rank lists 4 weeks before the deadline. Applicants were invited for optional in-person visits after program rank list finalization. Interviewed applicants, program directors, and program administrators were given surveys that included 7-17 questions and employed "skip logic," discrete answers (eg, "yes/no/unsure" or multiple choice), and open-ended questions. Survey questions assessed stakeholders' opinions about the value, equity, and potential downsides of this recruitment process. Results Participating programs interviewed an average of 379 applicants (range 205-534) with 39 (10.3% [39 of 379], range 7.9%-12.8% [33 of 420-51 of 397]) applicants completing in-person visits. Of 1808 interviewed applicants, 464 responded to the survey (26%); 88% (407 of 464) believe a similar optional in-person visit should be offered next year, 75% (347 of 464) found this process equitable, but only 56% (258 of 464) trusted programs not to change their rank lists. Nearly all who attended an in-person visit (96.5%, 109 of 113) found it valuable. All program directors liked the optional in-person visit and believe future applicants should be offered similar in-person visits. Conclusions A large majority of participating applicants and program directors believe that in-person visits should be offered after program rank list finalization. The majority of respondents felt this recruitment process was equitable.

Missing Voices: What Early Career Hospitalists View as Essential in Hospital Medicine-Focused Education.

OBJECTIVES: Acknowledging that a successful career in hospital medicine (HM) requires specialized skills, residency programs have developed hospital medicine-focused education (HMFE) programs. Surveys of Internal Medicine residency leaders have described HMFE curricula but are limited to that specialty and lack perspectives from early career hospitalists (ECHs) who recently completed this training. As such, we surveyed multispecialty ECHs to evaluate their preferences for HMFE and to identify gaps in standard residency training and career development that HMFE can bridge. The objectives of our study were to describe multispecialty ECH needs and preferences for HMFE and to identify gaps in standard residency training and career development that HMFE can bridge. METHODS: From February to March 2021, ECHs (defined as hospitalists within 0-5 years from residency) were surveyed using the Society of Hospital Medicine's listserv. Respondents identified as having participated in HMFE or not during residency (defining them as HMFE participants or non-HMFE participants). RESULTS: From 257 respondents, 84 (33%) ECHs met inclusion criteria. Half (n = 42) were HMFE participants. ECHs ranked clinical hospitalist career preparation (86%) and mentorship from HM faculty (85%) as the most important gaps in standard residency training and career development that HMFE can bridge. Other key components of HMFE included exposure to quality improvement, patient safety, and high-value care (67%); provision of autonomy through independent rounding (54%); and preparation for the job application process (70%). CONCLUSIONS: Multispecialty ECHs describe HMFE as positively influencing their decision to pursue a hospitalist career and increasing their preparedness for practice. HMFE may be particularly well suited to foster advanced clinical skills such as independent rounding, critical thinking, and self-reflection. We propose an organizing framework for HMFE in residency that may assist in the implementation and innovation of HMFE programs nationwide and in the development of standardized HMFE competencies.

A single center pilot study: assessing resident needs and faculty perceptions to improve training in rheumatology.

BACKGROUND: Internal medicine (IM) residents lack confidence in rheumatology. Due to the wide variety of topics in rheumatology, identifying the most important subjects to learn during training is vital to create future interventions to increase confidence and knowledge. The preferred teaching modality for both attendings/fellows and residents is not known. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to all IM residents, rheumatology fellows, and rheumatology faculty at the University of Chicago during the 2020-2021 academic year. Residents reported self-confidence levels on 10 rheumatology topics, while rheumatology attendings/fellows were asked to rank these from most to least important to learn during IM residency. All groups were asked preferred teaching modality. RESULTS: Median confidence level [interquartile range] among residents for caring for patients with rheumatological conditions was 6 [3.6-7.5] for inpatient and 5 [3.7-6.5] for outpatient settings (10 being very confident). Attendings and fellows identified the most important topics to learn during the rheumatology rotation as ordering and interpreting autoimmune serologies and musculoskeletal exam. Both attendings/fellows and residents preferred bedside teaching in the inpatient setting and case-based learning in the outpatient setting. CONCLUSIONS: While some disease-specific topics such as autoimmune serologies were identified as important rheumatology topics for IM residents to learn, more practical topics like musculoskeletal exam skills were also deemed important. This highlights the need for comprehensive interventions that focus on more than standardized exam topics alone to improve rheumatology confidence in IM residents. There are different preferences of teaching styles in various clinical settings.

Quantifying For-Profit Outcomes in GME: A Multispecialty Analysis of Board Certifying Examination Pass Rates in For-Profit Affiliated Residency Programs.

Background: The number of for-profit hospitals has increased in the United States, but their role in and outcomes for graduate medical education (GME) are unclear. Objectives: To describe for-profit involvement in internal medicine (IM), general surgery (GS), and pediatrics GME by quantifying change in for-profit affiliated residency programs and comparing for-profit and nonprofit affiliated program board certifying examination pass rates. Methods: We used Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and Medicare data to quantify for-profit prevalence in IM, GS, and pediatrics GME from 2001 to 2021. We used public pass rate data from the American Board of Surgeons (2017-2019; n=242 programs; 6562 examinees), American Board of Internal Medicine (2018-2020; n=465 programs; 23 922 examinees), and American Board of Pediatrics (2018-2020; n=202 programs; 9819 examinees) to model the relationship between profit status and pass rate within each specialty and across specialties combined using linear regression. Results: The proportion of for-profit affiliated residency programs increased 400.0% in IM, 334.4% in GS, and 23.2% in pediatrics from 2001 to 2021. Bivariate linear regression revealed significantly lower pass rate in for-profit affiliated programs in IM ß =-7.73, P<.001), pediatrics (ß =-14.6, P<.001), and the 3 specialties combined (ß =-5.45, P<.001). Upon multiple regression with addition of program characteristic covariates, this relationship remained significant in pediatrics (ß =-10.04, P=.006). Conclusions: The proportion of for-profit affiliated residency programs has increased in IM, GS, and pediatrics from 2001 to 2021. After controlling for covariates, for-profit affiliated programs were associated with lower board examination pass rates in pediatrics with no association in IM, GS, or the combined measure.

Residency Program Responses to Early COVID-19 Surges Highlight Tension as to Whether Residents Are Learners or Essential Workers.

PURPOSE: To quantify the extent to which internal medicine (IM) residents provided care for patients with COVID-19 and examine characteristics of residency programs with or without plans (at some point) to exclude residents from COVID-19 care during the first 6 months of the pandemic. METHOD: The authors used data from a nationally representative, annually recurring survey of U.S. IM program directors (PDs) to quantify early (March-August 2020) resident participation in COVID-19 care. The survey was fielded from August to December 2020. PDs reported whether they had planned to exclude residents from COVID-19 care (i.e., PTE status). PTE status was tested for association with program and COVID-19 temporal characteristics, resident schedule accommodations, and resident COVID-19 cases. RESULTS: The response rate was 61.5% (264/429). Nearly half of PDs (45.4%, 118/260) reported their program had planned at some point to exclude residents from COVID-19 care. Northeastern U.S. programs represented a smaller percentage of PTE than non-PTE programs (26.3% vs 36.6%; P = .050). PTE programs represented a higher percentage of programs with later surges than non-PTE programs (33.0% vs 13.6%, P = .048). Median percentage of residents involved in COVID-19 care was 75.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 22.5-100.0) for PTE programs, compared with 95.0 (IQR: 60.0-100.0) for non-PTE programs ( P < .001). Residents participated most in intensive care units (87.6%, 227/259) and inpatient wards (80.8%, 210/260). Accommodations did not differ by PTE status. PTE programs reported fewer resident COVID-19 cases than non-PTE programs (median percentage = 2.7 [IQR: 0.0-8.6] vs 5.1 [IQR: 1.6-10.7]; P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: IM programs varied widely in their reported plans to exclude residents from COVID-19 care during the early pandemic. A high percentage of residents provided COVID-19 care, even in PTE programs. Thus, the pandemic highlighted the tension as to whether residents are learners or employees.