A 10-Year Follow-up Survey of Psychiatry Resident Education in Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, the Academy of Consultation-Liaison (then Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine) surveyed US residency programs to understand training in consultation-liaison (CL) psychiatry, leading to recommendations in 2014. Since then, residency training in CL has evolved in the context of competing training demands, increased prioritization of electives, and reactions to coronavirus 2019. OBJECTIVE: To determine the current state of residency training in CL across the United States, including the structure of core and elective resident rotations in CL, attending physician staffing, presence of fellows and other trainees, didactic curriculum, and impact of coronavirus 2019. METHODS: Members of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Residency Education Subcommittee designed and piloted an 81-question survey tool that was sent to program directors of 269 US general psychiatry training programs for voluntary completion. RESULTS: One hundred three of 269 programs responded to the survey, yielding a response rate of 38.3%. Responding programs were larger and more likely to have a CL fellowship than nonresponding programs. Of the 103 responding programs, 82.5% have more than the minimally required time on CL, with 46.6% reporting an increase in total CL time in the past decade. Since 2010, 18.4% of responding programs changed the placement of the CL rotation, with 43.7% now adherent to the 2014 Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine recommendation to include core CL training in the second half of residency. Thirty-five percent of responding programs require residents to rotate on more than 1 CL service, and 19.4% have a required outpatient CL component. Faculty full-time equivalent varies widely. Of all services included, 33.8% report that all CL faculty are board-certified in CL psychiatry, whereas 18.7% have no board-certified faculty. Of the 103 responding programs, 36.9% offer a CL fellowship, but 31.1% report no residency graduates pursuing CL fellowships in the past 5 years. Of the included programs, 77.7% have a formal CL curriculum for residents, with 34.0% reporting a separate didactic series during the CL rotation. CONCLUSIONS: Among the responding programs, the amount of time spent on core CL rotations has increased in the past decade, but programs have also shifted CL training earlier in the course of residency. Residency programs are increasingly challenged to provide an optimal CL experience, and updated guidance from Academy of Consultation-Liaison may be appreciated.

Recommendations for training psychiatry residents in psychosomatic medicine.

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandates that residents in psychiatry training programs learn to provide psychiatric consultation to other medical and surgical services. The ACGME, however, offers little information to instruct academic faculty and institutions to what constitutes a quality educational experience in psychosomatic medicine/consultation-liaison psychiatry for the resident trainee. METHODS: These recommendations were developed through a collaborative process between educators in C-L psychiatry and members of the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine's Residency Education Subcommittee. RESULTS: This manuscript provides a broad framework for what constitutes a well-rounded clinical and academic resident rotation on psychiatric consultation-liaison services. A rotation that is viewed positively by residents is important as it likely provides a foundation for a growing interest in Psychosomatic Medicine and the development of future fellows and subspecialty trained physicians.

The state of the service: a survey of psychiatry resident education in psychosomatic medicine.

BACKGROUND: Although required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, training of general psychiatry residents in Psychosomatic Medicine (PM) varies significantly between programs. In 1996, the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine (APM) developed guidelines for residency training in PM. Since then, there has been no assessment of the status of PM training during psychiatry residency. OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the current state of PM training in U.S. psychiatry residency programs. METHOD: A 46-item questionnaire was sent via e-mail to 206 residency directors. Four major areas were assessed: the timing and duration of the PM rotation, level of faculty supervision, didactic curriculum, and role (or potential role) of the APM in residency education. RESULTS: Ninety-two surveys were returned (response rate 45%). Forty-four (54%) of the general psychiatry residencies reported the total duration of the C-L rotation as being between 3 and 6 months (including both full- and part-time rotation). Only 38 (46%) programs' residents complete their PM experience in 1 year of residency. The average Full-Time Equivalent of teaching faculty per service was 1.74 (standard deviation 0.92). Sixty-four (77%) programs have a formal didactic curriculum in C-L. Eighty-one (98%) respondents were aware of the APM. Fifty-eight (70%) had APM members among faculty. The most popular responses on how the APM could best serve training programs were the creation of a subspecialty curriculum (73%) as well as the development of a competency-based evaluation tool (66%). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in how residents are taught PM during their training. The APM is a well-recognized organization that may define what constitutes adequate residency training in PM and may help programs fulfill the educational needs of residents.