Evaluation of an Individualized Learning Plan Template for the Transition to Residency.

Background Specialty-specific individualized learning plans (ILPs) have been promoted to improve the undergraduate to graduate medical education transition, yet few pilots have been described. Objective To create and report on the feasibility and acceptability of a pilot internal medicine (IM) ILP template. Methods The ILP was created by a group of diverse IM expert stakeholders and contained questions to stimulate self-reflection and collect self-reported readiness data from incoming interns. US IM residency programs were invited to pilot the ILP with interns in spring 2022. Data was used at the programs' discretion. The pilot was evaluated by a post-pilot survey of programs to elicit perceptions of the impact and value of the ILP and analyze anonymous ILP data from 3 institutions. Results Fifty-two IM residency programs agreed to participate with a survey response rate of 87% (45 of 52). Of responding programs, 89% (40 of 45) collected ILPs, thus we report on data from these 40 programs. A total of 995 interns enrolled with 782 completing ILPs (79%). One hundred eleven ILPs were analyzed (14%). Most programs found the ILP valuable to understand incoming interns' competencies (26 of 40, 65%) and areas for improvement (24 of 40, 60%) and thought it should continue (29 of 40, 73%). Programs estimated the ILP took interns 29.2±14.9 minutes and 21.6±10.3 minutes for faculty mentors to complete. The most common barrier was faculty mentor participation. Conclusions An ILP based on interns' self-reported data was feasible and valuable to IM residency programs in understanding interns' competencies and areas for improvement.

Mortality Associated With Emergency Department Boarding Exposure: Are There Differences Between Patients Admitted to ICU and Non-ICU Settings?

BACKGROUND: Emergency Department (ED) boarding threatens patient safety. It is unclear whether boarding differentially affects patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) versus non-ICU settings. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: We performed a 2-hospital, 18-month, cross-sectional, observational, descriptive study of adult patients admitted from the ED. We used Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox Proportional Hazards regression to describe differences in boarding time among patients who died during hospitalization versus those who survived, controlling for covariates that could affect mortality risk or boarding exposure, and separately evaluating patients admitted to ICUs versus non-ICU settings. MEASURES: We extracted age, race, sex, time variables, admission unit, hospital disposition, and Elixhauser comorbidity measures and calculated boarding time for each admitted patient. RESULTS: Among 39,781 admissions from the EDs (21.3% to ICUs), non-ICU patients who died in-hospital had a 1.2-fold risk (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.36; P=0.016) of having experienced longer boarding times than survivors, accounting for covariates. We did not observe a difference among patients admitted to ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: Among non-ICU patients, those who died during hospitalization were more likely to have had incrementally longer boarding exposure than those who survived. This difference was not observed for ICU patients. Boarding risk mitigation strategies focused on ICU patients may have accounted for this difference, but we caution against interpreting that boarding can be safe. Segmentation by patients admitted to ICU versus non-ICU settings in boarding research may be valuable in ensuring that the safety of both groups is considered in hospital flow and boarding care improvements.