Exploring the Great Divide: Comparing Professional Development Satisfaction and Opportunities of Program Coordinators at Academic Medical Centers and Community-Based Programs.

INTRODUCTION: Program coordinators (PCs) need to maintain flexibility and evolve professionally with rapid changes in accreditation, specialty requirements, and policies. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recommends professional development for PCs. This mixed-methods study explored professional development opportunities and current practices of PCs at community and academic programs. METHODS: A survey was administered to the Chicago Area Medical Education Group members to elicit attitudes and opinions regarding professional development availability. RESULTS: A total of 109 participants (eligible = 178) completed surveys. 97.2% (n = 105, N = 108) of respondents indicated that development is necessary for being a great coordinator. PCs at community-based programs report lower attendance at national conferences and less satisfaction with professional development opportunities than their academic-based institution counterparts. 28.5% of the community-based coordinators are dissatisfied with opportunities compared with 7% of the academic-based coordinators. 37.7% of the community coordinators (compared with 2.9% academic) report a lack of development activities by their program or graduate medical education. Only half of the PCs report discussing professional development with their program director. However, institutional supports were regarded as facilitators to satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations for regular professional development, this study finds only half of the PCs regularly discuss professional development and finds disparities in opportunities between those in community versus academic settings.

Utilizing Telesimulation for Advanced Skills Training in Consultation and Handoff Communication: A Post-COVID-19 GME Bootcamp Experience.

COVID-19 forced the switch to virtual for many educational strategies, including simulation. Virtual formats have the potential to broaden access to simulation training, especially in resource-heavy "bootcamp"-type settings. We converted our in-person communication skills bootcamp to telesimulation and compared effectiveness and satisfaction between formats. During June 2020 orientation, 130 entering interns at one institution participated, using Zoom® to perform one mock consultation and three mock handoffs. Faculty rated performance with checklists and gave feedback. Post-bootcamp surveys assessed participant satisfaction and practice preparedness. Telesimulation performance was comparable to in-person for consultations and slightly inferior for handoffs. Survey response rate was 100%. Compared to in-person, there was higher satisfaction with telesimulation, and interns felt more prepared for practice (95% vs 78%, P < .01); 99% recommended the experience. Fifty percent fewer faculty were required for implementation. Telesimulation was well-received and comparable to in-person bootcamp, representing a feasible, scalable training strategy for communication skills essential in hospital medicine.

Resident Well-Being Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary studies reveal challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to the well-being of health care workers. Little is known about the effects of the pandemic on the well-being of graduate medical education (GME) residents or about protective factors and post-traumatic growth. Through deeper examination of resident well-being during this unique crisis, we can identify trends and associated lessons to apply broadly to resident well-being. OBJECTIVE: To characterize resident burnout, resilience, and loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: All residents in any specialty at a single institution were anonymously surveyed semiannually for 2 years (2019-2020), including the time period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Surveys included demographics, the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, the Maslach Burnout Inventory, and the UCLA Loneliness Scale. RESULTS: Overall response rates were 53% (508 of 964) in spring 2019, 55% (538 of 982) in fall 2019, 51% (498 of 984) in spring 2020, and 57% (563 of 985) in fall 2020. The overall rates of burnout were stable across all time periods and did not change during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among frontline residents, burnout rates were higher than other resident populations in both the pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic time periods. Resilience and loneliness measures were similar for frontline and non-frontline residents and remained stable during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Initial data from this single institution survey of all GME residents in the first 8 months of the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated burnout and loneliness did not increase and resilience was preserved.