Easing the Entry of Qualified International Medical Graduates to U.S. Medical Practice.

ABSTRACT: Almost one quarter of physicians and physicians-in-training in the United States are international medical graduates (IMGs), meaning they have graduated from a medical school not accredited in the United States. Some IMGs are U.S. citizens and others are foreign nationals. IMGs, many of whom have years of training and experience gained in their countries of origin, have long contributed to the U.S. health care system, especially by providing care to populations that have been historically underserved. Additionally, many IMGs contribute to the diversity of the health care workforce, which can enhance the health of the population. The diversity of the United States is increasing, and racial and ethnic concordance between a physician and a patient has been linked to improved health outcomes.IMGs must meet national- and state-level licensing and credentialing standards like any other U.S. physician. This assures the ongoing quality of the care provided by the medical workforce and protects the public. However, at the state level, variation in standards and standards that may be more challenging to meet than those for U.S. medical school graduates may hamper IMGs' contributions. IMGs who are not U.S. citizens also face visa and immigration barriers.In this article, the authors present insights gleaned from Minnesota's model IMG integration program as well as changes made in 2 states in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Improving and streamlining processes for IMGs to be licensed and credentialed as well as the policies governing visas and immigration, where appropriate, can ensure that IMGs will be willing and able to continue to practice when and where they are needed. This, in turn, could increase the contribution of IMGs to addressing health care inequities, improving health care access through service in federally designated Health Professional Shortage Areas, and reducing the impact of potential physician shortages.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Stop No Evil: Institutional-Level Tracking to Combat Mistreatment of Residents and Fellows.

BACKGROUND: Mistreatment of trainees, including discrimination and harassment, is a problem in graduate medical education. Current tools to assess the prevalence of mistreatment often are not administered institutionally and may not account for multiple sources of mistreatment, limiting an institution's ability to respond and intervene. OBJECTIVE: We describe the utility of a brief questionnaire, embedded within longer institutional program evaluations, measuring the prevalence of different types of trainee mistreatment from multiple sources, including supervisors, team members, colleagues, and patients. METHODS: In 2018, we administered a modified version of the mistreatment questions in the Association of American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire to investigate the prevalence and sources of mistreatment in graduating residents and fellows. We conducted analyses to determine the prevalence, types, and sources of mistreatment of trainees at the institutional level across graduate medical education programs. RESULTS: A total of 234 graduating trainees (77%) from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities completed the questions. Patients were cited as the primary source of mistreatment in 5 of 6 categories, including both direct and indirect offensive remarks, microaggressions, sexual harassment, and physical threats (paired t test comparisons from t = 3.92 to t = 9.71, all P < .001). The only category of mistreatment in which patients were not the most significant source was humiliation and shaming. CONCLUSIONS: Six questions concerning types and sources of trainee mistreatment, embedded within an institutional survey, generated new information for institutional-, departmental- and program-based future interventions. Patients were the greatest source for all types of mistreatment except humiliation and shaming.

Evaluation activities to strengthen an injury prevention resource center for urban families.

The Johns Hopkins Children's Safety Center (CSC) is a unique health care provider and patient education resource that elevates the attention injury prevention receives in a medical setting and reduces barriers to injury prevention experienced by low-income, urban families, the Center's priority population. This article describes the CSC's development, implementation, and selected elements of its evaluation. Because evaluation has played an important role in the CSC from its inception through its implementation and sustainability, three evaluation activities are described: process evaluation to monitor activity, impact evaluation to understand its effects on parents' safety behaviors, and qualitative interviews with CSC visitors and non-visitors to enhance services. Implications of each evaluation activity are described and recommendations are made for strengthening the CSC.

Effects of improved access to safety counseling, products, and home visits on parents' safety practices: results of a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To present the results of an intervention trial to enhance parents' home-safety practices through pediatric safety counseling, home visits, and an on-site children's safety center where parents receive personalized education and can purchase reduced-cost products. DESIGN: Pediatricians were randomized to a standard- or an enhanced-intervention group. Parents of their patients were enrolled when the patient was 6 months or younger and observed until 12 to 18 months of age. SETTING: A hospital-based pediatric resident continuity clinic that serves families living in low-income, inner-city neighborhoods. PARTICIPANTS: First- and second-year pediatric residents and their patient-parent dyads. INTERVENTIONS: Parents in the standard-intervention group received safety counseling and referral to the children's safety center from their pediatrician. Parents in the enhanced-intervention group received the standard services plus a home-safety visit by a community health worker. OUTCOMES: Home observers assessed the following safety practices: reduction of hot-water temperature, poison storage, and presence of smoke alarms, safety gates for stairs, and ipecac syrup. RESULTS: The prevalence of safety practices ranged from 11% of parents who stored poisons safely to 82% who had a working smoke alarm. No significant differences in safety practices were found between study groups. However, families who visited the children's safety center compared with those who did not had a significantly greater number of safety practices (34% vs 17% had > or 3). CONCLUSIONS: Home visiting was not effective in improving parents' safety practices. Counseling coupled with convenient access to reduced-cost products appears to be an effective strategy for promoting children's home safety.