RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Direct observation is important, yet medical residents are rarely observed. We implemented and evaluated a direct observation program in resident clinics to increase the frequency of observation and feedback and improve perceptions about direct observation. METHODS: We assigned faculty as observers in our resident clinics between June 2019 and February 2020. We surveyed residents and faculty before and after the program. Faculty completed a form for each observation performed. We analyzed surveys to examine changes in barriers, frequency and type of observations and feedback, and attitudes toward observation. The analytical sample included 38 and 37 pre- and postresident surveys, respectively, and 20 and 25 pre- and postfaculty surveys, respectively. RESULTS: Resident survey response rates were 32.3% (40/124) pre- and 30.7% (39/127) postintervention. Most residents (76% [pre], 86% [post], P = 0.258) reported being observed in at least one of the four areas: history, examination, counseling, or wrap-up. We received observation tracking forms on 68% of eligible residents. Observed history taking increased from 30% to 79% after the program (P = 0.0010). Survey response rates for faculty were 64.7% (22/34) pre- and 67.5% (25/37) postintervention. Fewer faculty reported time (80% [pre], 52% [post], P = 0.051) and competing demands (65% [pre], 52% [post], P = 0.380) as barriers postintervention. Fewer faculty postintervention viewed observation as a valuable teaching tool (100% [pre], 79% [post], P = 0.0534). All faculty who did not view observation as valuable were the least experienced. DISCUSSION: Assigning faculty as observers can increase observation, especially in history taking, though data suggest an increase in negative perceptions of observation by faculty.