Education curriculum assessment for teaching electrocardiography: Rationale and design for the prospective, international, randomized controlled EDUCATE trial.

BACKGROUND: Electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation training is a fundamental component of medical education across disciplines. However, the skill of interpreting ECGs is not universal among medical graduates, and numerous barriers and challenges exist in medical training and clinical practice. An evidence-based and widely accessible learning solution is needed. DESIGN: The EDUcation Curriculum Assessment for Teaching Electrocardiography (EDUCATE) Trial is a prospective, international, investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized controlled trial designed to determine the efficacy of self-directed and active-learning approaches of a web-based educational platform for improving ECG interpretation proficiency. Target enrollment is 1000 medical professionals from a variety of medical disciplines and training levels. Participants will complete a pre-intervention baseline survey and an ECG interpretation proficiency test. After completion, participants will be randomized into one of four groups in a 1:1:1:1 fashion: (i) an online, question-based learning resource, (ii) an online, lecture-based learning resource, (iii) an online, hybrid question- and lecture-based learning resource, or (iv) a control group with no ECG learning resources. The primary endpoint will be the change in overall ECG interpretation performance according to pre- and post-intervention tests, and it will be measured within and compared between medical professional groups. Secondary endpoints will include changes in ECG interpretation time, self-reported confidence, and interpretation accuracy for specific ECG findings. CONCLUSIONS: The EDUCATE Trial is a pioneering initiative aiming to establish a practical, widely available, evidence-based solution to enhance ECG interpretation proficiency among medical professionals. Through its innovative study design, it tackles the currently unaddressed challenges of ECG interpretation education in the modern era. The trial seeks to pinpoint performance gaps across medical professions, compare the effectiveness of different web-based ECG content delivery methods, and create initial evidence for competency-based standards. If successful, the EDUCATE Trial will represent a significant stride towards data-driven solutions for improving ECG interpretation skills in the medical community.

Assessment of Training in Health Disparities in US Internal Medicine Residency Programs.

Importance: Health disparities continue to exist despite the call to increase education of health care practitioners. An assessment of health disparities education has not been previously studied in a national cohort. Objective: To describe and compare the curriculum on health disparities from the perspective of program directors and perceptions of training among internal medicine residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional survey study used a survey of US internal medicine program directors, the 2015 Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine annual survey, which included questions about health disparities curriculum, and a 1-time survey of US internal medicine residents that asked questions related to their training in health disparities on the American College of Physicians 2015 Internal Medicine In-Training Examination. All internal medicine program directors who were members of Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine (368 of 396 accredited programs), and internal medicine residents who took the Internal Medicine In-Training Examination were eligible. Final analysis of the merged data set was completed in 2018. Exposures: Questions were included on the annual Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine survey and the Internal Medicine In-Training Examination. Main Outcomes and Measures: Program directors reported on presence of health disparities curriculum, educational methods, quality, barriers and challenges to curriculum, and Clinical Learning Environment Review. Residents reported whether they received training and quality of the training in health disparities. Results: A total of 227 program directors (response rate, 61.7%) and 22 723 residents (response rate, 87.2%) responded to the surveys. A total of 90 program directors (39.6%) reported a curriculum in health disparities, but among these, only 16 program directors (17.8%) felt quality of their education was very good or excellent. In more than half of the programs (52 programs [55.9%]), outcomes of the curriculum were not measured. After merging, the combined data set included 18 883 residents from 366 APDIM member programs with 225 program director responses. Among these, 13 251 residents (70.2%) reported some training in caring for patients at risk for health disparities. Of residents who reported receiving training, 10 494 (79.2%) rated the quality as very good or excellent. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that that despite the Clinical Learning Environment Review mandate and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education required competencies for training in health disparities, relatively few internal medicine programs in the US provided educational curriculum. Additionally, the existence of health disparities curricula in internal medicine training programs was not associated with resident's perception of training or its quality.

Characteristics of internal medicine residents who successfully match into cardiology fellowships.

BACKGROUND: The unique traits of residents who matriculate into subspecialty fellowships are poorly understood. We sought to identify characteristics of internal medicine (IM) residents who match into cardiovascular (CV) fellowships. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 8 classes of IM residents who matriculated into residency from 2007 to 2014. The primary outcome was successful match to a CV fellowship within 1 year of completing IM residency. Independent variables included residents' licensing exam scores, research publications, medical school reputation, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership, declaration of intent to pursue CV in the residency application personal statement, clinical evaluation scores, mini-clinical evaluation exercise scores, in-training examination (ITE) performance, and exposure to CV during residency. RESULTS: Of the 339 included residents (59% male; mean age 27) from 120 medical schools, 73 (22%) matched to CV fellowship. At the time of residency application, 104 (31%) had ≥1 publication, 38 (11%) declared intention to pursue CV in their residency application personal statement, and 104 (31%) were members of AOA. Prior to fellowship application, 111 (33%) completed a CV elective rotation. At the completion of residency training, 108 (32%) had ≥3 publications. In an adjusted logistic regression analysis, declaration of intention to pursue CV (OR 6.4, 99% CI 1.7-23.4; p < 0.001), completion of a CV elective (OR 7.3, 99% CI 2.8-19.0; p < 0.001), score on the CV portion of the PGY-2 ITE (OR 1.05, 99% CI 1.02-1.08; p < 0.001), and publication of ≥3 manuscripts (OR 4.7, 99% CI 1.1-20.5; p = 0.007) were positively associated with matching to a CV fellowship. Overall PGY-2 ITE score was negatively associated (OR 0.93, 99% CI 0.90-0.97; p < 0.001) with matching to a CV fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: Residents' matriculation into CV fellowships was associated with declaration of CV career intent, completion of a CV elective rotation, CV medical knowledge, and research publications during residency. These findings may be useful when advising residents about pursuing careers in CV. They may also help residents understand factors associated with a successful match to a CV fellowship. The negative association between matching into CV fellowship and overall ITE score may indicate excessive subspecialty focus during IM residency.

US Internal Medicine Program Director Perceptions of Alignment of Graduate Medical Education and Institutional Resources for Engaging Residents in Quality and Safety.

Alignment between institutions and graduate medical education (GME) regarding quality and safety initiatives (QI) has not been measured. The objective was to determine US internal medicine residency program directors' (IM PDs) perceived resourcing for QI and alignment between GME and their institutions. A national survey of IM PDs was conducted in the Fall of 2013. Multivariable linear regression was used to test association between a novel Integration Score (IS) measuring alignment between GME and the institution via PD perceptions. The response rate was 72.6% (265/365). According to PDs, residents were highly engaged in QI (82%), but adequate funding (14%) and support personnel (37% to 61%) were lower. Higher IS correlated to reports of funding for QI (76.3% vs 54.5%, P = .012), QI personnel (67.3% vs 41.1%, P < .001), research experts (70.5% vs 50.0%, P < .001), and computer experts (69.0% vs 45.8%, P < .001) for QI assistance. Apparent mismatch between GME and institutional resources exists, and the IS may be useful in measuring GME-institutional leadership alignment in QI.

Addressing the Interprofessional Collaboration Competencies of the Association of American Medical Colleges: A Systematic Review of Assessment Instruments in Undergraduate Medical Education.

PURPOSE: To summarize characteristics and validity evidence of tools that assess teamwork in undergraduate medical education (UME), and provide recommendations for addressing the interprofessional collaboration competencies of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). METHOD: The authors conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from January 1, 1979, through April 1, 2014; they searched reference lists and national meeting abstracts. They included original research reports that described a quantitative tool used to assess teamwork in UME. They abstracted characteristics and validity evidence for the tools, plus study quality, according to established frameworks. Two authors independently abstracted 25% of articles and calculated agreement. Authors then applied predefined criteria to identify tools best suited to address the AAMC's teamwork competencies. RESULTS: Of 13,549 citations, 70 articles describing 64 teamwork assessment tools were included. Of these 64 tools, 27 (42%) assessed teamwork in classroom, 31 (48%) in simulation, and only 7 (11%) in actual clinical settings. The majority (47; 73%) of tools assessed medical students' teamwork in interprofessional teams. On the basis of content concordance, strength of validity evidence, generalizability of scores, and level of outcomes, four published tools were recommended to assess the AAMC's teamwork competencies: the Collaborative Healthcare Interdisciplinary Relationship Planning Scale, Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale, Communication and Teamwork Skills assessment, and Teamwork Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial validity evidence supports the use of several UME teamwork assessments. Four tools have been appropriately designed and sufficiently studied to constitute appropriate assessments of the AAMC's teamwork competencies.

Teamwork assessment in internal medicine: a systematic review of validity evidence and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Valid teamwork assessment is imperative to determine physician competency and optimize patient outcomes. We systematically reviewed published instruments assessing teamwork in undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education in general internal medicine and all medical subspecialties. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, CINAHL and PsycINFO from January 1979 through October 2012, references of included articles, and abstracts from four professional meetings. Two content experts were queried for additional studies. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: Included studies described quantitative tools measuring teamwork among medical students, residents, fellows, and practicing physicians on single or multi-professional (interprofessional) teams. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Instrument validity and study quality were extracted using established frameworks with existing validity evidence. Two authors independently abstracted 30 % of articles and agreement was calculated. RESULTS: Of 12,922 citations, 178 articles describing 73 unique teamwork assessment tools met inclusion criteria. Interrater agreement was intraclass correlation coefficient 0.73 (95 % CI 0.63-0.81). Studies involved practicing physicians (142, 80 %), residents/fellows (70, 39 %), and medical students (11, 6 %). The majority (152, 85 %) assessed interprofessional teams. Studies were conducted in inpatient (77, 43 %), outpatient (42, 24 %), simulation (37, 21 %), and classroom (13, 7 %) settings. Validity evidence for the 73 tools included content (54, 74 %), internal structure (51, 70 %), relationships to other variables (25, 34 %), and response process (12, 16 %). Attitudes and opinions were the most frequently assessed outcomes. Relationships between teamwork scores and patient outcomes were directly examined for 13 (18 %) of tools. Scores from the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire and Team Climate Inventory have substantial validity evidence and have been associated with improved patient outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Review is limited to quantitative assessments of teamwork in internal medicine. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong validity evidence for several published tools assessing teamwork in internal medicine. However, few teamwork assessments have been directly linked to patient outcomes.

Residents' reflections on quality improvement: temporal stability and associations with preventability of adverse patient events.

PURPOSE: Residents' reflections on quality improvement (QI) opportunities are poorly understood. The authors used the Mayo Evaluation of Reflection on Improvement Tool (MERIT) to measure residents' reflection scores across three years and to determine associations between reflection scores and resident and adverse patient event characteristics. METHOD: From 2006 to 2009, 48 Mayo Clinic internal medicine residents completed biannual reflections on adverse events and classified event severity and preventability. Faculty assessed residents' reflections using MERIT, which contains 18 Likert-scaled items and measures three factors-personal reflection, systems reflection, and event merit. ANOVA was used to identify changes in MERIT scores across three years of training and among factors, paired t tests were used to identify differences between MERIT factor scores, and generalized estimating equations were used to examine associations between MERIT scores and resident and adverse event characteristics. RESULTS: The residents completed 240 reflections. MERIT reflection scores were stable over time. Individual factor scores differed significantly (P < .0001), with event merit being the highest and systems reflection the lowest. Event preventability was significantly associated with MERIT factor scores and overall scores (beta = 0.415; CI = 0.186-0.643; P = .0004). No significant associations between MERIT scores and resident characteristics or event severity were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Residents' reflections on adverse events remained constant over time, were lowest for systems factors, and were associated with adverse event preventability. Future research should explore learners' emphasis on systems aspects of QI and the relationship between QI and event preventability.

Pharmaceutical industry support and residency education: a survey of internal medicine program directors.

BACKGROUND: Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry are known to affect the attitudes and behaviors of medical residents; however, to our knowledge, a nationally representative description of current practices has not been reported. METHODS: The Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine surveyed 381 US internal medicine residency program directors in 2006-2007 regarding pharmaceutical industry support to their training programs. The primary outcome measure was program director report of pharmaceutical financial support to their residency. Demographic and performance variables were analyzed with regard to these responses. RESULTS: In all, 236 program directors (61.9%) responded to the survey. Of these, 132 (55.9%) reported accepting support from the pharmaceutical industry. One hundred seventy of the 236 program directors (72.0%) expressed the opinion that pharmaceutical support is not desirable. Residency programs were less likely to receive pharmaceutical support when the program director held the opinion that industry support was not acceptable (odds ratio [OR], 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.22). Programs located in the southern United States were more likely to accept pharmaceutical support (OR, 8.45; 95% CI, 1.95-36.57). The American Board of Internal Medicine pass rate was inversely associated with acceptance of industry support: each 1% decrease in the pass rate was associated with a 21% increase in the odds of accepting industry support (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.07-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the program directors did not find pharmaceutical support desirable, more than half reported acceptance of industry support. Acceptance of pharmaceutical industry support was less prevalent among residency programs with a program director who considered support unacceptable and those with higher American Board of Internal Medicine pass rates.