Academic Medicine最新文献

Abstract: Labor unions represent an increasing number of graduate medical education (GME) trainees in the United States. Most GME and other leaders at academic medical centers lack familiarity with resident/fellow unions, including what to expect, what decisions need to be made, and the processes involved in a unionization effort. It is important for designated institutional officials (DIOs), GME program directors, teaching faculty, and other institutional leaders to understand the drivers of resident/fellow unionization, the union organizing campaign and election process, and what follows a vote to unionize, including collective bargaining. Careful consideration of the role of educational and other institutional leaders during the unionization process is important to prevent any loss of trust between residents/fellows and those they view as their advocates. In this Commentary, the authors describe these considerations from their perspective as DIOs and GME leaders.

Abstract: During the COVID-19 pandemic, resident unions proliferated. While unionization resulted in increased compensation and benefits, the process of union negotiations may have created adversarial relationships between residents and their institutions' leadership, who residents depend on for supervision and the development of clinical expertise. Such adversarial relationships could affect the learning environment, which is critical to the delivery of high-quality care. In this commentary, the authors suggest that academic medical centers should offer residents an authentic seat at the institutional care delivery leadership table, ensuring residents' full participation in key organizational decisions. Doing so represents an alternative to unionization, with its potentially adversarial relationships, while still achieving a key goal of residents-to be included in the decisions that affect them and the care they provide. In this way, residents can use their unique understanding of the institutions' strengths and weaknesses to improve the quality of patient care and the learning environment. Such engagement can also help residents achieve competence in systems-based practice and provide a vital link between institutions and the patients and community they serve through health policy and advocacy activities.

Abstract: ProblemThe persistent underrepresentation of American Indians and Alaska Natives (AIANs) in the health professions and the decline of AIAN matriculants into health-related programs suggest interventions are needed. The authors developed Healers, a text message mentoring service, to engage and support AIANs interested in the health professions.ApproachHealers, launched in 2018, seeks to reach urban and rural high school/college-aged AIANs and other AIANs. Individuals subscribe by texting "HEALER" to a numeric code using their mobile device. Two concurrent intervention strategies include: (1) a 17-week schedule of scripted texts and (2) live weekly office hours with 2 health pathway coaches. During the pilot year (June 2018-June 2019), participants were recruited via national conferences, health fairs, social media, and word of mouth. Intake and exit surveys were conducted. Content analysis of text messages received during office hours was conducted.OutcomesDuring the pilot, 304 subscribers opted into Healers and generated 2,933 text messages. Intake survey respondents included high school students (n = 18/77, 23.4%), college students (n = 29/77, 37.7%), and others (n = 29/77, 37.7%). They represented 60 Tribes from 28 U.S. states. Among exit survey respondents, 26/28 (92.9%) reported Healers was useful, 25/27 (92.6%) reported it exposed them to new health professions, 26/27 (96.3%) expressed stories from AIAN health professionals were valuable, and 25/26 (96.2%) reported pursuing a health professions career seemed possible. Five themes emerged from the analysis of the 346 participant texts received during office hours: cultural support, mentorship, opportunities, wellness, and community building.

Purpose: For accelerated 3-year MD (3YMD) pathways to be fully adopted in medical education, a comprehensive analysis of outcome data is needed. This study includes 7 accelerated 3YMD graduating classes at NYU Grossman School of Medicine (NYUGSOM) and reports on outcomes from both medical school and internship compared to their 4-year MD (4YMD) counterparts.

Method: Outcomes across the undergraduate-graduate medical education continuum for the first 7 classes of NYUGSOM graduates (matriculated from 2013-2019) from the accelerated 3YMD (n = 136) and 4YMD pathways (n = 681) were compared. For the internship outcomes, 3YMD interns were compared with 4YMD interns who graduated from NYUGSOM and all 4YMD interns (4YMD graduates from NYUGSOM and any other medical school) at NYUGSOM residencies.

Results: Accelerated 3YMD students were approximately 5 months older at admission and had higher multiple mini-interview scores than 4YMD students. Overall, accelerated 3YMD students performed similarly to 4YMD students during medical school and internship. Significant differences included higher performance by 3YMD students on preclerkship exams and lower performance on Steps 1 and 2 (average: 5.6 and 8.3 fewer points, respectively) and the physical examination portion of the NYUGSOM Comprehensive Clinical Skills Exam. Internship data indicated comparable team assessments across all residencies, statistically significant higher performance on Step 3 when compared to all 4YMD interns, and, in internal medicine, comparable clinical reasoning between 3YMD and all 4YMD interns. When comparing 3YMD interns to all 4YMD interns in the internal medicine residency program, 3YMD interns had a statistically significantly higher performance on milestones.

Conclusions: The outcomes from 7 years of graduating accelerated 3YMD students at NYUGSOM show similar performance in medical school and early residency to 4YMD graduates. Long-term study of accelerated 3YMD students from NYUGSOM and other medical schools is needed to further validate the success of this innovative medical education pathway.

Purpose: This study describes graduate medical education (GME) placement outcomes for recent U.S. medical school graduates and examines racial and ethnic differences in GME placement among these graduates.

Method: This retrospective, observational study used data collected from and about U.S. medical school graduates for academic years 2015-2016 through 2021-2022. An individual-level, deidentified database was constructed to examine GME placement at graduation in association with race and ethnicity, as well as other demographic and academic and professional development variables. Multilevel (nested by school) logistic regression models identified variables independently associated with GME placement at graduation, reporting unadjusted odds ratios (UORs) and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% CIs.

Results: The study sample included 140,072 of 140,073 eligible graduates (> 99.9%; 1 graduate missing gender information was excluded), of whom 136,022 (97.1%) were placed in GME at graduation. Proportions of graduates placed in GME varied by race and ethnicity and by each covariable examined. In addition, proportions of graduates placed in GME varied by school (N = 152; mean [SD], 96.9% [3.4%]; P < .001). In multilevel (nested by school) models, GME placement UORs were lower for (among other groups examined) Asian (UOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.83), Black or African American (UOR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.39-0.49), and Hispanic (UOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.80) graduates (vs White). The GME placement AORs, adjusted for all covariables, were similar for Asian (AOR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.07), Black or African American (AOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.02), and Hispanic (AOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.25) graduates (vs White).

Conclusions: The proportion of graduates placed in GME at graduation during the 7 years of the study was high. However, there were racial and ethnic differences in this outcome during the study period.

Purpose: To avoid overreliance on metrics and better identify candidates who add value to the learning environment, some medical schools and residency programs have begun using holistic review for screening and selection, but limited data support or refute this use. This scoping review examines holistic review definitions and practice in medical education, summarizes research findings, and identifies gaps for future research.

Method: The authors searched 7 databases using the keywords holistic, attributes, mission-based, mission-centric , and socially accountable for articles on holistic review within undergraduate medical education (UME) and graduate medical education (GME) published from database inception through July 5, 2024. Author pairs independently screened articles for inclusion and extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved via discussion. Quantitative and qualitative synthesis was performed.

Results: A total of 6,511 articles were identified, with 33 included in this review. Twenty-five studies (76%) focused exclusively on GME, with only a few assessing holistic review in UME. Holistic review was implemented at 3 main stages: screening, interviewing, and ranking. Common rationales included service patterns, patient-physician identity concordance, enhancing patient trust, professional advocacy, and educational benefits. Holistic review elements varied, with most falling within the Association of American Medical Colleges experiences, attributes, and metrics framework. Nearly all studies reported an increase in the percentage of underrepresented in medicine trainees interviewed or selected. Several studies also demonstrated increases in other groups (e.g., women, lower socioeconomic status). Many studies included additional interventions to promote diversity, limiting the ability to assess holistic review in isolation.

Conclusions: This scoping review summarizes the literature on rationale, development and implementation process, structure and components, outcomes assessed, barriers, and strategies for success for holistic review. This work can inform institutions and departments seeking to develop or refine their own holistic review systems and serve as a nidus for future research.

Purpose: This study examines sense of belonging (belongingness) in a large population of medical students, residents, and fellows and associations with learner burnout, organizational recruitment retention indicators, and potentially modifiable learning environment factors.

Method: All medical students, residents, and fellows at Mayo Clinic sites were surveyed between October and November 2020 with items measuring sense of belonging in 3 contexts (school or program, organization, and surrounding community), burnout (2 Maslach Burnout Inventory items), recruitment retention indicators (likelihood of recommending the organization and accepting a job offer), potentially modifiable learning environment factors, and demographic factors (age, gender, race and ethnicity, LGBTQ+ identification, disability, and socioeconomic background).

Results: Of 2,257 learners surveyed, 1,261 (56%) responded. The number of learners reporting a somewhat or very strong sense of belonging was highest in the school or program (994 of 1,227 [81%]) followed by the organization (957 of 1,222 [78%]) and surrounding community (728 of 1,203 [61%]). In adjusted analyses, learners with very strong organization belongingness had lower odds of burnout (odds ratio [OR], 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.12) and higher odds of being likely to recommend the organization (OR, 505.23; 95% CI, 121.54-2,100.18) and accept a job offer (OR, 38.68; 95% CI, 15.72-95.15; all P < .001). School or program and community belongingness were also strongly associated with these outcomes. In multivariable analyses, social support remained associated with higher odds of belongingness in school or program, organization, and surrounding community, favorable ratings of faculty relationships and leadership representation with higher odds of school or program and organization belongingness, and favorable ratings of diversity, equity, and inclusion learning climate with higher odds of community belongingness.

Conclusions: Belongingness among medical students, residents, and fellows varies across contexts, strongly correlates with learner burnout and organizational recruitment retention indicators, and is associated with multiple potentially modifiable learning environment factors.

Purpose: Competency-based medical education relies on equitable assessment. This study examined the influence of faculty and trainee gender on assessments of internal medicine (IM) resident performance over time.

Method: A longitudinal analysis of clinical performance assessments from 7 U.S. IM residency programs (July 2014-June 2019) was conducted. Core competency scores (patient care [PC], medical knowledge [MK], practice-based learning and improvement [PBLI], systems-based practice [SBP], professionalism [PROF], and interpersonal and communication skills [ICS]) were standardized across programs. Cross-classified mixed-effects linear regression evaluated the relationship between gender and standardized competency scores within training programs, while adjusting for multiple variables including IM In Training Examination percentile rank.

Results: Data included 9,346 evaluations by 1,011 faculty (552 [55%] men, 459 [45%] women) for 664 residents (358 [54%] men, 306 [46%] women). Initially, women residents' scores were significantly lower than men's in PC (estimated difference [standard error ] -0.097 [0.033], P = .004), MK (-0.145 [0.034], P < .001), and PBLI -0.090 [0.040], P = .022). PC, MK, PBLI, and SBP scores increased more over time for women residents than men (PC: 0.050 [0.015], P = .001; MK: 0.052 [0.015], P = .001; PBLI: 0.036 [0.018], P = .048; SBP: 0.036 [0.016], P = .027). PROF and ICS scores were comparable across gender. There was a significant interaction between faculty gender and postgraduate year (PGY) across all competencies but none between resident gender, faculty gender, and PGY, indicating that men and women faculty rated residents differently over time but were consistent in how they rated men and women residents.

Conclusions: Gender-based assessment differences were variable across competencies and time. Women residents had lower scores initially but greater gains in "hard skill" (MK, PC, and PBLI) than in "soft skill" (ICS and PROF) competencies, suggesting assessment inequities. Efforts to ensure equitable assessment are needed.