How Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors Are Using Entrustable Professional Activities: A National Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: In the present assessment environment in undergraduate medical education at U.S. medical schools, the prevalence and implementation of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) in internal medicine (IM) clerkships are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and approach to EPA use in U.S. IM clerkships. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of core IM clerkship directors. PARTICIPANTS: One-hundred forty IM clerkship directors at Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited U.S./U.S. territory-based allopathic medical schools with membership in the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) as of December 2022. MAIN MEASURES: Use of EPAs in IM core clerkships, including use for grading, types of EPAs, use of supportive measures for assessment, and current validity frameworks. KEY RESULTS: The survey response was 80% (112/140); two additional respondents completed the section on EPA use (n = 114). Approximately half of respondents (47%) reported their IM clerkship used EPAs. Among schools accredited after 1977, a higher percentage was associated with having incorporated EPAs (p = 0.03). The Association of American Medical Colleges Core EPAs for Entering Residency (CEPAER) was the most common framework used by Clerkship Directors (CDs) for developing EPAs (55%). Most CDs (56%) used EPAs for both formative and summative assessments, and approximately half of CDs (48%) used EPAs for a portion of the final grade determination. CDs who used EPAs were no more likely to report efforts to ensure the validity of assessment, the use of faculty development, or that written assessments were a valid measure of students' performance compared to those who did not use EPAs. CONCLUSIONS: Although EPAs have experienced substantial uptake in the IM clerkship and contribute to formative and summative assessment of learners, their use does not appear to be associated with enhanced efforts to obtain validity information.

How Are We Teaching Advocacy? A National Survey of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: Although internal medicine (IM) physicians accept public advocacy as a professional responsibility, there is little evidence that IM training programs teach advocacy skills. The prevalence and characteristics of public advocacy curricula in US IM residency programs are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence and characteristics of curricula in US IM residencies addressing public advocacy for communities and populations; to describe barriers to the provision of such curricula. DESIGN: Nationally representative, web-based, cross-sectional survey of IM residency program directors with membership in an academic professional association. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 276 IM residency program directors (61%) responded between August and December 2022. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of US IM residency programs that teach advocacy curricula; characteristics of advocacy curricula; perceptions of barriers to teaching advocacy. KEY RESULTS: More than half of respondents reported that their programs offer no advocacy curricula (148/276, 53.6%). Ninety-five programs (95/276, 34.4%) reported required advocacy curricula; 33 programs (33/276, 12%) provided curricula as elective only. The content, structure, and teaching methods of advocacy curricula in IM programs were heterogeneous; experiential learning in required curricula was low (23/95, 24.2%) compared to that in elective curricula (51/65, 78.5%). The most highly reported barriers to implementing or improving upon advocacy curricula (multiple responses allowed) were lack of faculty expertise in advocacy (200/276, 72%), inadequate faculty time (190/276, 69%), and limited curricular flexibility (148/276, 54%). CONCLUSION: Over half of US IM residency programs offer no formal training in public advocacy skills and many reported lack of faculty expertise in public advocacy as a barrier. These findings suggest many IM residents are not taught how to advocate for communities and populations. Further, less than one-quarter of required curricula in public advocacy involves experiential learning.

Training in Safe Opioid Prescribing and Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder in Internal Medicine Residencies: a National Survey of Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: Training future clinicians in safe opioid prescribing (SOP) and treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is critical to address the opioid epidemic. The Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education requires all programs to provide instruction and experience in pain management and will mandate addiction medicine clinical experiences for internal medicine trainees. OBJECTIVE: Assess residents' training in SOP and treatment of OUD and identify training barriers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationally representative survey was emailed in 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred twenty-two Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine members in US internal medicine residency programs. MAIN MEASURES: Program opportunities and challenges to developing or implementing training in SOP, treatment of OUD, and buprenorphine waiver training, and perceived curricular effectiveness. KEY RESULTS: The response rate was 69.4% (293/422). Most programs required didactics in SOP (94.2%) and treatment of OUD (71.7%). Few programs required clinical experiences including addiction medicine clinics (28/240, 11.7%), inpatient consult services (11/240, 4.6%), or offsite treatment rotations (8/240, 3.3%). Lack of trained faculty limited developing or implementing curricula (61.5%). Few respondents reported that their program was "very effective" in teaching SOP (80/285, 28.1%) or treatment of OUD (43/282, 15.3%). Some programs offered buprenorphine waiver training to residents (83/286, 29.0%) and faculty (94/286, 32.9%) with few mandating training (11.7% (28/240) and 5.4% (13/240) respectively). Only 60 of 19,466 (0.3%) residents completed buprenorphine waiver training. Primary care programs/tracks were more likely to offer waiver training to residents (odds ratio [OR], 3.07; 95% CI, 1.68-5.60; P < 0.001) and faculty (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-3.22; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationally representative survey, few internal medicine residency programs provided clinical training in SOP and treatment of OUD, and training was not viewed as very effective. Lack of effective training may have adverse implications for patients, clinicians, and society.

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.

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.

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.

Barriers to Accessing Nighttime Supervisors: a National Survey of Internal Medicine Residents.

BACKGROUND: Single-center studies have reported residents experience barriers to accessing supervising physicians overnight, but no national dataset has described barriers perceived by residents or the association between supervision models and perceived barriers. OBJECTIVE: To explore residents' perception of barriers to accessing overnight supervision. DESIGN: Questions about overnight supervision and barriers to accessing it were included on the American College of Physicians Internal Medicine In-Training Examination® (IM-ITE®) Resident Survey in Fall 2017. PARTICIPANTS: All US-based internal medicine residents who completed the 2017 IM-ITE®. Responses from 20,744 residents (84%) were analyzed. MAIN MEASURES: For our main outcome, we calculated percentages of responses for eight barriers and tested for association with the presence or absence of nocturnists. For our secondary outcome, we categorized free-text responses enumerating barriers from all residents into the five Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) categories to elucidate future areas for study or intervention. KEY RESULTS: Internal medicine residents working in hospitals without nocturnists more commonly reported having at least one barrier to accessing a supervising physician "always" or "most of the time" (5075/9842, 51.6%) compared to residents in hospitals with nocturnists (3074/10,902, 28.2%, p < 0.001). Among residents in hospitals without nocturnists, the most frequently reported barrier to accessing attending supervision was attendings not being present in the hospital (30.4% "always" or "most of the time"); residents in hospitals with nocturnists most frequently reported desire to make their own decisions as a barrier to contacting attendings (15.7% "always" or "most of the time"). Free-text responses from residents with and without nocturnists most commonly revealed organization (47%) barriers to accessing supervision; 28% cited person barriers, and 23% cited tools/technology barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Presence of nocturnists is associated with fewer reported barriers to contacting supervising physicians overnight. Organizational culture, work schedules, desire for independence, interpersonal interactions, and technology may present important barriers.

Where Do International Medical Graduates Matriculate for Internal Medicine Training? A National Longitudinal Study.

INTRODUCTION: In 2020, roughly 25% of applicants who matched into internal medicine (IM) residencies were international medical graduates (IMGs). We examine 12-year trends in distribution of IMGs among IM training programs and explore differences in program perceptions towards IMG recruitment. METHODS: Since 2007, Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine Annual Surveys have collected data about trainees by medical school graduate type. Sixteen additional questions regarding perceptions of IMGs were included in the 2017 spring survey. RESULTS: The 2017 survey response rate was 63.3% (236/373) and ranged from 61.9 to 70.2% for the 2007-2019 Annual Surveys. During that 12-year period, 55-70% of community programs' and 22-30% of university programs' PGY1 positions were filled by IMGs. In 2017, 45% of community programs' and 15% of university programs' interview and ranking positions were allocated to IMGs. Departmental pressure (university 45.6% [95% CI 43.7-47.5]; community 28.2% [95% CI 26.6-29.7]; p = 0.007), institutional priority (university 64.0% [95% CI 62.1-66.0]; community 41% [95% CI 36.9-44.6]; p = 0.001), and reputational concerns (university 52.8% [95% CI 50.0-55.6]; community 38.5% [95% CI 36.0-40.9]; p = 0.045) were cited as factors influencing recruitment of IMGs. CONCLUSION: Our study was limited to exploring program factors in residency recruitment and did not assess applicant preferences. There is a large, longstanding difference in the recruitment of IMGs to US community-based and university residencies, beginning during the interview and ranking process. Further research in disparities in IMG recruitment is needed, including exploring pressures, preferences, and potential biases associated with the recruitment of IMGs.

Clerkship Roles and Responsibilities in a Rapidly Changing Landscape: a National Survey of Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors.

BACKGROUND: In the rapidly changing landscape of undergraduate medical education (UME), the roles and responsibilities of clerkship directors (CDs) are not clear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the current roles and responsibilities of Internal Medicine CDs. 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: Responsibilities of core CDs, including oversight of other faculty, and resources available to CDs including financial support and dedicated time. KEY RESULT: The survey response rate was 83% (107/129). Ninety-four percent of the respondents oversaw the core clerkship inpatient experience, while 47.7% (n = 51) and 5.6% (n = 6) oversaw the outpatient and longitudinal integrated clerkships respectively. In addition to oversight, CDs were responsible for curriculum development, evaluation and grades, remediation, scheduling, student mentoring, and faculty development. Less than one-third of CDs (n = 33) received the recommended 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) support for their roles, and 15% (n = 16) had less than 20% FTE support. An average 0.41 FTE (SD .2) was spent in clinical work and 0.20 FTE (SD .21) in administrative duties. Eighty-three percent worked with other faculty who assisted in the oversight of departmental UME experiences, with FTE support varying by role and institution. Thirty-five percent of CDs (n = 38) had a dedicated budget for managing their clerkship. CONCLUSIONS: The responsibilities of CDs have increased in both number and complexity since the dissemination of previous guidelines for expectations of and for CDs in 2003. However, resources available to them have not substantially changed.

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.

Structures and Processes of Grading Committees in Internal Medicine Clerkships: Results of a National Survey.

PURPOSE: Clerkship grades are important in the residency selection process but can be influenced by individual bias and grading tendencies. Although clinical competency committees are standard in graduate medical education, in undergraduate medical education, they have not gained widespread traction. This study describes structures and processes of grading committees in internal medicine (IM) clerkships and strategies used to mitigate grading bias. METHOD: From September to December 2022, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine conducted its annual survey of IM core clerkship directors at 140 U.S. and U.S. territory-based medical schools. This study was based on 23 questions about grading committees in IM clerkships. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 80% (n = 112/140). Forty-seven respondents (42%) reported using grading committees in their IM clerkship (median committee size, 7; range, 3-20) (primarily clerkship leadership and faculty). Responsibilities included determining grades for all students (31 [66%]) and students at borderline of failing (30 [64%]), adjudicating on students with professionalism concerns (25 [53%]), and reconciling discordant clinical evaluations (24 [51%]). To mitigate deliberation bias, committees most frequently used multisource assessments (38 [81%]) and adoption of a shared mental model (36 [77%]). Approximately one-third of grading committees "rarely" discussed gender (14 [30%]) and race or ethnicity (15 [32%]), and 7 committees (15%) "never" discussed gender and race or ethnicity. Clerkship directors perceived developing a shared mental model (60 [92%]), promoting consistency (59 [91%]) and transparency (57 [88%]) in the process, mitigating assessment bias (58 [89%]), improving student satisfaction (54 [83%]), and sharing grading responsibility (44 [68%]) as potential benefits. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that grading committees in IM clerkships are not widely used and that existing committees vary in structure and process. These findings highlight an opportunity for medical schools to consider using grading committees to improve grade assignment and address grading inconsistencies.

Moving Beyond the Dichotomous Assessment of Professionalism in the Internal Medicine Clerkship: Results of a National Survey of Clerkship Directors.

PURPOSE: This study examines how internal medicine clerkship faculty and leadership conceptualize professionalism and professional behaviors and attitudes, identifies whether and how faculty use metrics to assess professionalism and factor it into clerkship grades, and describes barriers that prevent faculty from feeling prepared to support the development of professional behaviors in students. METHOD: The Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine opened a call for thematic survey section proposals to its physician-faculty members, blind-reviewed all submissions, and selected 4 based on internal medicine clinical clerkship training experience relevance. The survey launched on October 5 and closed on December 7, 2021. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 137 core clerkship directors (CDs) at Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical schools, 103 (75.2%) responded to the survey. Of 102 respondents (1 nonrespondent), 84 (82.4%) identified professional behavior lapses in involvement and 60 (58.8%) identified introspection lapses. Of 103 respondents, 97 (94.2%) reported that their clerkships ask clinical faculty and residents to formally evaluate professionalism, and 64 (62.1%) reported that they factor professionalism assessments into final clerkship grades. CDs reported multiple barriers to addressing professionalism directly with students, including logistical barriers, professionalism assessment subjectivity concerns, and the possible adverse effect of an unprofessional label for students. CONCLUSIONS: Professionalism assessment and remediation in medical education currently center on a deficit model that seeks to identify and remediate professionalism lapses, rather than a developmental model that seeks to nurture growth. This dichotomous characterization of behaviors as professional or unprofessional limits assessment and can adversely affect the learning environment. The authors propose a shift to a developmental model that considers professionalism as a continuous process parallel to the acquisition of clinical skills and medical knowledge.

Bias Reporting in the Clinical Learning Environment: A National Survey of Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors.

PURPOSE: Bias exists in the internal medicine (IM) clinical learning environment; however, it is unclear how often bias is identified by clerkship directors (CDs), how bias is addressed, and whether best practices exist for identifying or mitigating bias. This study investigated how IM CDs receive and respond to bias reports in the clinical learning environment. METHOD: In May 2021, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) created an 18-question survey assessing the frequency of bias reports, macroaggressions and microaggressions, and report outcomes. Of the 152 U.S. medical schools that met study accreditation criteria, the final survey population included 137 CDs (90%) whose medical schools held valid CDIM membership. RESULTS: Of the 137 surveys sent, 100 were returned (survey response rate, 73%). Respondents reported a median of 3 bias events (interquartile range, 1-4; range, 0-50) on the IM clerkship in the past year. Among 76 respondents who reported 1 or more event, microaggressions represented 43 of the 75 total events (57%). No mechanism emerged as the most commonly used method for reporting bias. Race/ethnicity (48 of 75 [64%]) and gender (41 of 75 [55%]) were cited most as the basis for bias reports, whereas the most common sources of bias were student interactions with attending physicians (51 of 73 [70%]) and residents (40 of 73 [55%]). Of the 75 respondents, 53 (71%) described the frequency of bias event reports as having increased or remained unchanged during the past year. Only 48 CDs (49%) responded that they were "always" aware of the outcome of bias reports. CONCLUSIONS: Bias reports remain heterogeneous, are likely underreported, and lack best practice responses. There is a need to systematically capture bias events to work toward a just culture that fosters accountability and to identify bias events through more robust reporting.

A mixed-methods assessment of sexual and gender-based violence in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo to inform national and international strategy implementation.

CONTEXT: National and international strategies were implemented in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to address sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess community attitudes of SGBV and health facility capacity to address SGBV in eastern DRC. DESIGN AND SETTING: The design and setting are as follows: a cross-sectional, population-based cluster survey of 998 adults in eastern DRC territories, a convenience sample of 27 adults using semi-structured directed interviews, qualitative data from 37 focus groups conducted in three health zones, assessment of 64 health facilities and a comparative analysis of SGBV strategies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures opinions regarding SGBV prevention and justice and health facility capacity to address SGBV. RESULTS: The majority of respondents favored the legal system over community mediation to obtain justice for SGBV. However, 61.1% (95% CI, 51.8-70.5%) of SGBV survivors reported being forced to accept community mediation. Among SGBV survivors, 81.2% (95% CI, 74.5-87.8%) reported no available mental health care. Less than half of all respondents reported access to a hospital, clinic or pharmacy. The analyses and facility assessment reinforce the need to improve SGBV care. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed methodologies point to the complexities of addressing SGBV, assess key elements of SGBV prevention, justice and response, and may ultimately inform national and international strategies.

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.