Innovation and Missed Opportunities in Internal Medicine Undergraduate Education During COVID-19: Results from a National Survey.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 disrupted undergraduate clinical education when medical schools removed students from clinical rotations following AAMC recommendations. Clerkship directors (CDs) had to adapt rapidly and modify clerkship curricula. However, the scope and effects of these modifications are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of the initial phase of COVID-19 on the internal medicine (IM) undergraduate clinical education. DESIGN: A nationally representative web survey. PARTICIPANTS: IM CDs from 137 LCME-accredited US medical schools in 2020. MAIN MEASURES: Items (80) assessed clerkship structure and curriculum, assessment in clerkships, post-clerkship IM clinical experiences, and CD roles and support. The framework of Understanding Crisis Response (Royal Society for Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce) was used to determine whether curricular modifications were "amplified," "restarted," "let go," or "ended." KEY RESULTS: Response rate was 74%. In response to COVID-19, 32% (32/101) of clerkships suspended all clinical activities and 66% (67/101) only in-person. Prior to clinical disruption, students spent a median of 8.0 weeks (IQR: 2) on inpatient and 2.0 weeks (IQR: 4) on ambulatory rotations; during clinical re-entry, students were spending 5.0 (IQR: 3) and 1.0 (IQR: 2) weeks, respectively. Bedside teaching and physical exam instruction were "let go" during the early phase. Students were removed from direct patient care for a median of 85.5 days. The sub-internship curriculum remained largely unaffected. Before the pandemic, 11% of schools were using a pass/fail grading system; at clinical re-entry 47% and during the survey period 23% were using it. Due to the pandemic, 78.2% of CDs assumed new roles or had expanded responsibilities; 51% reported decreased scholarly productivity. CONCLUSIONS: Curricular adaptations occurred in IM clerkships across US medical schools as a result of COVID-19. More research is needed to explore the long-term implications of these changes on medical student education and clinical learning environments.

Roles and Responsibilities of Medicine Subinternship Directors : Medicine Subinternship Director Roles.

BACKGROUND: The internal medicine (IM) subinternship (also referred to as acting internship) plays a crucial part in preparing medical students for residency. The roles, responsibilities, and support provided to subinternship directors have not been described. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe the current role of IM subinternship directors with respect to their responsibilities, salary support, and reporting structure. DESIGN: Nationally representative, annually recurring thematic survey of IM core clerkship directors with membership in an academic professional association as of September 2017. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 129 core clinical medicine clerkship directors at Liaison Committee on Medical Education fully accredited U.S./U.S.-territory-based medical schools. MAIN MEASURES: Responsibilities, salary support, and reporting structure of subinternship directors. KEY RESULTS: The survey response rate was 83.0% (107/129 medical schools). Fifty-one percent (54/107) of respondents reported overseeing both core clerkship inpatient experiences and/or one or more subinternships. For oversight, 49.1% (28/53) of subinternship directors also reported that they were the clerkship director, 26.4% (14/53) that another faculty member directed all medicine subinternships, and 18.9% (10/53) that each subinternship had its own director. The most frequently reported responsibilities for the subinternship directors were administration, including scheduling, and logistics of student schedules (83.0%, 44/53), course evaluation (81.1%, 43/53), and setting grades 79.2% (42/53). The modal response for estimated FTE per course was 10-20% FTE, with 33.3% (16/48) reporting this level of support and 29.2% (14/54) reporting no FTE support. CONCLUSIONS: The role of the IM subinternship director has become increasingly complex. Since the IM subinternship is critical to preparing students for residency, IM subinternship directors require standard expectations and adequate support. Future studies are needed to determine the appropriate level of support for subinternship directors and to define essential roles and responsibilities.

Telehealth Attitudes, Training, and Preparedness Among First-Year Internal Medicine Residents in the COVID-19 Era.

Introduction: Telehealth, especially the use of real-time video and phone visits in ambulatory care, is increasingly important in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The current state of internal medicine (IM) interns' telehealth training at the start of residency is unknown. Objective: To characterize the attitudes, training, and preparedness of IM interns regarding the use of telehealth video and phone visits in ambulatory care. Materials and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of IM interns at four IM residency programs in the United States in 2020. Results: One hundred fifty-six surveys were analyzed (response rate 82%). Seventy-five percent of interns rated training in the use of real-time video and phone visits for ambulatory care as important or very important. The vast majority received no training (74%) or clinical experience (90% no prior video visits, 81% no prior phone visits) during medical school. More interns believed that primary care may be effectively delivered via video visits compared with phone visits (77% vs. 35%). Most interns (69%) missed clinical time during medical school due to the COVID-19 pandemic; 41% felt that the pandemic negatively affected their ambulatory care preparation. Overall, the majority of interns (58%) felt prepared for primary care; only 12% felt prepared to deliver primary care using either video or phone visits. Conclusions: Although IM interns had favorable attitudes toward video and phone visits, few had training or clinical experience; most felt unprepared. Residency programs may need to close training gaps for current interns in conducting telehealth video and phone visits.

Teaching Telemedicine in the COVID-19 Era: a National Survey of Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine (TM) experiences in undergraduate medical education were uncommon. When students' clinical experiences were interrupted due to the pandemic, TM education provided opportunities for students to participate in clinical care while adhering to social distancing guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of TM experiences in the internal medicine (IM) core clerkship experience prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, during interruption in clinical clerkships, and following the return to in-person activities at US medical schools. DESIGN: The Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) survey is a national, annually recurring thematic survey of IM core clerkship directors. The 2020 survey focused on effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including a section about TM. The survey was fielded online from August through October 2020. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 137 core clinical medicine clerkship directors at Liaison Committee on Medical Education fully accredited US/US territory-based medical schools. MAIN MEASURES: A 10-item thematic survey section assessing student participation in TM and assessment of TM-related competencies. KEY RESULTS: The response rate was 73.7% (101/137 medical schools). No respondents reported TM curricular experiences prior to the pandemic. During clinical interruption, 39.3% of respondents reported TM experiences in the IM clerkship, whereas 24.7% reported such experiences occurring at the time they completed the survey. A higher percentage of clerkships with an ambulatory component reported TM to be an important competency compared to those without an ambulatory component. CONCLUSIONS: The extent to which TM was used in the IM clinical clerkship, and across clinical clerkships, increased substantially when medical students were removed from in-person clinical duties as a response to COVID-19. When students returned to in-person clinical duties, experiences in TM continued, suggesting the continued value of TM as part of the formal education of students during the medicine clerkship. Curricula and faculty development will be needed to support TM education.

Time for Clinic: Fourth-Year Primary Care Exposure and Clinic Preparedness Among Internal Medicine Interns.

BACKGROUND: Internal medicine (IM) residency graduates consistently report being less prepared for outpatient practice than inpatient medicine. Although an initial study suggested interns arriving for IM residency reported low levels of preparedness for continuity clinic, the impact of education and experience during the undergraduate medical education to graduate medical education transition on ambulatory training is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe end of medical school primary care exposure among entering IM interns and its association with self-assessed preparedness for residency continuity clinic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of 161 entering IM interns in 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Entering interns at four geographically diverse IM residency programs (University of Chicago, University of North Carolina, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Washington), representing 81 US medical schools. RESULTS: A total of 139 interns (86%) responded to the survey. Surveyed interns reported a median of zero days of general internal medicine (GIM) clinic (interquartile range [IQR]: 0-20 days) and 2.5 days of multispecialty adult primary care (IQR: 0-26.5 days) during fourth year of medical school. The median last exposure to primary care was 13 months prior to internship (IQR: 7-18 months). Interns who rated themselves as prepared for primary care clinic reported a median of twenty more multispecialty adult primary care days (20 vs. 0 days; p < 0.01) and fourteen more GIM clinic days (14 vs. 0 days; p < 0.01) than their unprepared counterparts. The experiences were also more recent, with six fewer months between their last multispecialty adult primary care exposure and the start of internship (9 vs. 15 months; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of incoming IM interns had no primary care training during the fourth year of medical school. At the start of residency, IM interns who felt more prepared for their primary care clinic reported more recent and more numerous primary care experiences.

Teaching Safe Opioid Prescribing During the Opioid Epidemic: Results of the 2018 Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine Survey.

BACKGROUND: Educating medical trainees across the continuum is essential to a multifaceted strategy for addressing the opioid epidemic. OBJECTIVE: To assess the current state of internal medicine clerkship content on safe opioid prescribing and opioid use disorder, and barriers to curriculum implementation. DESIGN: National Annual (2018) Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-four clerkship directors at all Liaison Committee of Medical Education accredited US medical schools with CDIM membership as of October 1, 2018. MAIN MEASURES: The survey section on safe opioid prescribing and opioid use disorder education in the internal medicine clerkship addressed assessment of current curricula, perceived importance of curricula, barriers to implementation, and plans to start or expand curricula. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses, and Pearson's chi-square and Fisher's exact tests for statistical comparisons. KEY RESULTS: The survey response rate was 82% (110/134). Overall 54.1% of responding institutions reported covering one or more topics related to safe opioid prescribing or opioid use disorder in the internal medicine clerkship. A preponderance of clerkship directors (range 51-86%) reported that various opioid-related topics were important to cover in the internal medicine clerkship. Safe opioid prescribing topics were covered more frequently than topics related specifically to opioid use disorder. The main barriers identified included time (80.9%) and lack of faculty expertise (65.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Clerkship directors agreed that incorporating safe opioid prescribing and opioid use disorder topics in the internal medicine clerkship is important, despite wide variation in current curricula. Addressing curricular time constraints and lack of faculty expertise in internal medicine clerkships will be key to successfully integrating content to address the opioid epidemic.

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 clerkship model (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.

Year-End Clinic Handoffs: A National Survey of Academic Internal Medicine Programs.

BACKGROUND: While there has been increasing emphasis and innovation nationwide in training residents in inpatient handoffs, very little is known about the practice and preparation for year-end clinic handoffs of residency outpatient continuity practices. Thus, the latter remains an identified, yet nationally unaddressed, patient safety concern. OBJECTIVES: The 2014 annual Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine (APDIM) survey included seven items for assessing the current year-end clinic handoff practices of internal medicine residency programs throughout the country. DESIGN: Nationwide survey. PARTICIPANTS: All internal medicine program directors registered with APDIM. MAIN MEASURES: Descriptive statistics of programs and tools used to formulate a year-end handoff in the ambulatory setting, methods for evaluating the process, patient safety and quality measures incorporated within the process, and barriers to conducting year-end handoffs. KEY RESULTS: Of the 361 APDIM member programs, 214 (59%) completed the Transitions of Care Year-End Clinic Handoffs section of the survey. Only 34% of respondent programs reported having a year-end ambulatory handoff system, and 4% reported assessing residents for competency in this area. The top three barriers to developing a year-end handoff system were insufficient overlap between graduating and incoming residents, inability to schedule patients with new residents in advance, and time constraints for residents, attendings, and support staff. CONCLUSIONS: Most internal medicine programs do not have a year-end clinic handoff system in place. Greater attention to clinic handoffs and resident assessment of this care transition is needed.

Year-End Resident Clinic Handoffs: Narrative Review and Recommendations for Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Year-end clinic handoffs in resident continuity clinics are an important patient safety issue. METHODS: Intervention articles addressing the year-end resident clinic handoff were identified in a targeted literature search. These articles were reviewed and abstracted to summarize the current literature. On the basis of these reviews and consensus expert opinion, recommendations to improve year-end clinic handoffs were developed. RESULTS: Of 23 identified articles, 10 intervention articles in the fields of internal medicine, internal medicine-pediatrics, psychiatry, and family medicine were ultimately included. The additional 13 nonintervention studies were used as background material. There were 12 clinic handoff recommendations for improvement: (1) focus on patients most at risk during the handoff, (2) educate residents, (3) consider balancing caseloads for the residents, (4) prepare patients for the handoff and perform patient-centered outreach, (5) standardize a written method of sign-out and require verbal communication for a subset of patients, (6) use a standardized template or technology solution for the handoff, (7) identify specific tasks that require follow-up, (8) enhance attending supervision during the handoff, (9) make patient assignments clear after the handoff, (10) have patients establish care with the new provider as soon as possible after the handoff, (11) establish care with telephone contact prior to the first visit, (12) perform safety audits to ensure that sign-out occurs, patients receive appointments, no-shows are rescheduled, and task follow-up is completed. CONCLUSION: There is emerging evidence for interventions to improve year-end resident clinic handoffs, and the recommendations provided are a starting point to guide training programs.

"Ms. B changes doctors": using a comic and patient transition packet to engineer patient-oriented clinic handoffs (EPOCH).

BACKGROUND: Few patient-centered interventions exist to improve year-end residency clinic handoffs. AIM: Our purpose was to assess the impact of a patient-centered transition packet and comic on clinic handoff outcomes. SETTING: The study was conducted at an academic medicine residency clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were patients undergoing resident clinic handoff 2011-2013 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Two months before the 2012 handoff, patients received a "transition packet" incorporating patient-identified solutions (i.e., a new primary care provider (PCP) welcome letter with photo, certificate of recognition, and visit preparation tool). In 2013, a comic was incorporated to stress the importance of follow-up. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Patients were interviewed by phone with response rates of 32 % in 2011, 43 % in 2012 and 36 % in 2013. Most patients who were interviewed were aware of the handoff post-packet (95 %). With the comic, more patients recalled receiving the packet (44 % 2012 vs. 64 % 2013, p< 0.001) and correctly identified their new PCP (77 % 2012 vs. 98 % 2013, p< 0.001). Among patients recalling the packet, most (70 % 2012; 65 % 2013) agreed it helped them establish rapport. Both years, fewer patients missed their first new PCP visit (43 % in 2011, 31 % in 2012 and 26 % in 2013, p< 0.001). DISCUSSION: A patient-centered transition packet helped prepare patients for clinic handoffs. The comic was associated with increased packet recall and improved follow-up rates.

What do patients think about year-end resident continuity clinic handoffs? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Although Internal Medicine year-end resident clinic handoffs affect numerous patients, little research has described patients' perspectives of the experience. OBJECTIVE: To describe patients' perceptions of positive and negative experiences pertaining to the year-end clinic handoff; to rate patient satisfaction with aspects of the clinic handoff and identify whether or not patients could name their new physicians. DESIGN: Qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: High-risk patients who underwent a year-end clinic handoff in July 2011. MEASUREMENTS: Three months post-handoff, telephone interviews were conducted with patients to elicit their perceptions of positive and negative experiences. An initial coding classification was developed and applied to transcripts. Patients were also asked to name their primary care physician (PCP) and rate their satisfaction with the handoff. RESULTS: In all, 103 telephone interviews were completed. Patient experiences regarding clinic handoffs were categorized into four themes: (1) doctor-patient relationships (i.e. difficulty building rapport); (2) clinic logistics (i.e. difficulty rescheduling appointments); (3) process of the care transition (i.e. patient unaware transition occurred); and (4) patient safety-related issues (i.e. missed tests). Only 59 % of patients could correctly name their new PCP. Patients who reported that they were informed of the clinic transition by letter or by telephone call from their new PCP were more likely to correctly name them (65 % vs. 32 % p = 0.007), report that their new doctor assumed care for them immediately (81 % [68/84] vs. 53 % [10/19], p = 0.009) and report satisfaction with communication between their old and new doctors (80 % [67/84] vs. 58 % [11/19], p = 0.04). Patients reported positive experiences such as learning more about their new physician through personal sharing, which helped them build rapport. Patients who reported being aware of the medical education mission of the clinic tended to be more understanding of the handoff process. CONCLUSIONS: Patients face unique challenges during year-end clinic handoffs and provide insights into areas of improvement for a patient-centered handoff.

Strategies for Advancing Equity in Frontline Clinical Assessment.

Educational equity in medicine cannot be achieved without addressing assessment bias. Assessment bias in health professions education is prevalent and has extensive implications for learners and, ultimately, the health care system. Medical schools and educators desire to minimize assessment bias, but there is no current consensus on effective approaches. Frontline teaching faculty have the opportunity to mitigate bias in clinical assessment in real time. Based on their experiences as educators, the authors created a case study about a student to illustrate ways bias affects learner assessment. In this paper, the authors use their case study to provide faculty with evidence-based approaches to mitigate bias and promote equity in clinical assessment. They focus on 3 components of equity in assessment: contextual equity, intrinsic equity, and instrumental equity. To address contextual equity, or the environment in which learners are assessed, the authors recommend building a learning environment that promotes equity and psychological safety, understanding the learners' contexts, and undertaking implicit bias training. Intrinsic equity, centered on the tools and practices used during assessment, can be promoted by using competency-based, structured assessment methods and employing frequent, direct observation to assess multiple domains. Instrumental equity, focused on communication and how assessments are used, includes specific, actionable feedback to support growth and use of competency-based narrative descriptors in assessments. Using these strategies, frontline clinical faculty members can actively promote equity in assessment and support the growth of a diverse health care workforce.

Medical student advising during virtual residency recruitment: results of a national survey of internal medicine clerkship and sub-internship directors.

INTRODUCTION: The residency application process is a critical time for medical students. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted changes to the residency recruitment procedures with the conversion of interviews to a virtual format. For medical school advisors guiding students on an all-virtual residency application process brought uncertainty to their advising practices. Thus, this study aimed to identify advising practices during the 2021 virtual application cycle. METHODS: We administered an IRB-exempt national survey through the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine to 186 internal medicine core/co-/associate/assistant clerkship directors and sub-internship directors representing 140 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited U.S./U.S.-territory-based medical schools in spring 2021. The 23-question survey was designed and pilot-tested by faculty-educators and leaders with expertise in undergraduate medical education. Data analysis included paired t- and z-tests and thematic analysis of open-ended questions. RESULTS: The institutional response rate was 67% (93/140) and individual rate 55% (103/186). Half of the respondents felt prepared/very prepared (40% and 13% respectively) for their advising roles. Compared to pre-pandemic cycles, respondents advised a typical student in the middle-third of their class at their institution to apply to more residency programs (mean 24 programs vs 20, p < 0.001) and accept more interviews (mean 14 interviews vs 12, p < 0.001). Sixty-three percent (64/101) of respondents spent more time on student advising; 51% (51/101) reported more students asked them for informal advice. Fifty-nine percent (60/101) of respondents reported their advisees were able to assess a residency program 'somewhat well;' 31% (31/101) expressed that residency recruitment should remain entirely virtual in the future. CONCLUSION: The transition to virtual residency recruitment due to COVID-19 prompted advising practices that may have contributed to application inflation and increased advising workload. Future studies should explore longitudinal outcomes of virtual interviews on student success to guide best practices in how to advise students during residency recruitment.