Implementation of the AAMC's Holistic Review Model for Psychiatry Resident Recruitment.

Introduction: In psychiatry, several converging factors are impacting the recruitment of residents: the increased competitiveness of the specialty, the national trend to take active steps to improve diversity and inclusion, and the decision from USMLE to change Step 1 to a pass/fail result. Methods: We developed a workshop for psychiatry residency program directors to meet these challenges and transition into using a holistic review model during recruitment. The workshop included (1) a didactic session providing background on the AAMC holistic review model; (2) a small-group exercise to determine and prioritize experiences, attributes, competencies, and metrics (EACMs) aligned with the program's mission and aims; (3) a review of the rankings from the previous exercise, selection of two "very important" criteria for each of the four domains of the EACM model, and operationalization of these criteria based on the recruitment process; and (4) a discussion focused on application of program criteria with example applicants. Results: The holistic review workshop was conducted at the American Association of Psychiatry Residency Directors conference in 2021 with 48 self-selected attendees. Following the workshop, 74% of attendees reported a likelihood of implementing holistic applications during their next application cycle, 78% were able to leave with at least one actionable item, 100% thought that the session was interactive, and 78% felt that the session met their expectations. Discussion: Implementing a holistic review for psychiatry residency recruitment can assist programs in responding to the rapidly changing landscape and achieve aims for improving diversity and inclusion.

Comparing Electronic and Manual Tracking Systems for Monitoring Resident Duty Hours.

BACKGROUND: Changes in the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty hour requirements have created significant monitoring responsibilities for institutions. This study explored the types of tracking systems used and determined for each type of tracking system the number of violations identified and the number of ACGME citations issued. METHODS: An 8-question, anonymous, electronic survey was sent to 3,275 residency program coordinators across 24 ACGME-accredited specialties nationwide. The survey was developed by the study investigators to gather data on the type of system used by programs, perceived advantages and disadvantages of the system, the number and types of violations identified, and subsequent ACGME citations for duty hour noncompliance. RESULTS: Of the 889 responses (27.1% response rate), 780 (87.7%) reported using an electronic system, while 94 (10.6%) used a manual system. Programs found electronic systems significantly superior on most characteristics, including accuracy, effectiveness, ease of use, reliability, reporting variety, and time investment (all P<0.001). Electronic systems identified significantly more violations than their manual counterparts; however, violation identification did not correlate with an increase in ACGME duty hour citations for programs using electronic systems (all P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Although a relationship was seen between the tracking system and the number of violations identified, no significant relationship was detected between the system used and the number of citations issued by the ACGME. While programs have invested considerable time, effort, and expense in systems to track duty hours, the real meaning of the data collected and its value to programs, residents, the ACGME, and the healthcare system remains unclear.