Piloting web-based structural competency modules among internal medicine residents and graduate students in public health.

Introduction: Fewer than half of internal medicine program directors report any health disparities curriculum. We piloted a web-based healthcare disparities module among internal medicine (IM) residents to test effectiveness and feasibility, compared to a convenient sample of graduate students enrolled in a public health equity course. Methods: IM residents participated in an in-person session (module 1: introduction to racial and ethnic health disparities), but first, they completed a pre-module knowledge quiz. Two weeks later, they completed module 2: "unconscious associations" and a post-module knowledge quiz. For the control arm Yale School of Public Health (YSPH) students enrolled in a course on health disparities completed the pre-module knowledge quiz, module 1, and 2 as required by their course instructor. Results: Forty-nine IM residents and 22 YSPH students completed the pre-module quiz and Module 1. The mean (SD) score out of 25 possible points for the IM residents on the pre-module quiz was 16.1/25 (2.8), and 16.6/25 (3.2) for YSPH students, with no statistically significant difference. Nineteen residents (38.8%) completed the post-module quiz with a mean score of 16.7/25 (2.2), Hedge's g =0.23, compared to 18 (81.8%) YSPH students, whose mean (SD) score was 19.5/25 (2.1), Hedge's g=1.05. YSPH students' post-module quiz average was statistically significantly higher than their pre-module test score, as well as the residents' post-module test (P < 0.001). In examining participants' responses to specific questions, we found that 51% (n = 25) of residents wrongly defined discrimination with an emphasis on attitudes and intent as opposed to actions and impact, compared to 22.7% (n = 5) YSPH students before the module, vs. 63.2% (n = 12) and 88.9% (n = 16) respectively after. Conclusion: After completing a healthcare disparities course, graduate students in public health saw greater gains in knowledge compared to IM residents. Residents' responses showed knowledge gaps such as understanding discrimination, and highlight growth opportunity in terms of health equity education. Furthermore, embedding health equity education in required curricular activities may be a more effective approach.

Perspectives of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors on the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Diversity Standards.

BACKGROUND: To increase diversity and inclusion in graduate medical education, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) issued a revision to their Common Program Requirements during the 2019-2020 academic year mandating that all residency programs must have policies and practices to achieve appropriate diversity among trainees and faculty. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of internal medicine program directors (PDs) and associate program directors (APDs) on the ACGME diversity standard. DESIGN: Qualitative study of internal medicine residency program leadership from academic and community programs across the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Current PDs (n = 12) and APDs (n = 8) of accredited US internal medicine residency programs. APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews. Data was analyzed using the constant comparative method to extract recurrent themes. KEY RESULTS: Three main themes, described by participants, were identified: (1) internal medicine PDs and APDs had limited knowledge of the new Common Program Requirement relating to diversity; (2) program leaders expressed concern that the diversity standard reaches beyond the PDs' scope of influence and lack of institutional commitment to the successful implementation of diversity standards; (3) participants described narrow view of diversity and inclusion efforts focusing on recruitment strategies during the interview season. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings of lack of familiarity with the new diversity standards, and limited institutional investment in diversity and inclusion efforts raise a concern about successful implementation across GME programs. Nevertheless, our finding suggests that structured implementation in the form of education, guideposts, and financial allocation can alleviate some of the concerns of program leadership in meeting the new ACGME diversity standard in a meaningful way.