Doherty, Julie

ABSTRACT Background The COVID-19 pandemic affected graduate medical education (GME) by decreasing elective procedures and disrupting didactic learning activities in 2020. Editorials have hypothesized that resident physicians worked fewer hours, therefore losing valuable experience, but we are not aware of studies that have objectively assessed changes in hours worked. Objective This study aims to identify differences secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic in resident work hours across all specialties at 3 geographically dispersed, integrated academic hospitals in a large sponsoring institution. Methods We obtained de-identified work hour data from all residency programs at Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. Resident work hours were compared between 2020 and 2019 from March to May. Results Work hours for 1149 and 1118 residents during the pandemic and control periods respectively were compared. Decreases in resident work hours were seen, with the largest decrease demonstrated in April 2020 when 19 of 43 programs demonstrated significantly decreased work hours. Residents worked more hours from home in April 2020 compared to the previous year (Arizona: mean 1 hour in 2019 vs 5.2 hours in 2020, P<.001; Florida: mean 0.7 hour in 2019 vs 6.5 hours in 2020, P<.001; Minnesota: mean 0.8 hour in 2019 vs 10.2 hours in 2020, P<.001). Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a decrease in work hours in some, but not all, specialties. The decrease in on-site work was only partially offset by an increased number of hours worked from home.

ABSTRACT Background The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) is an innovative element of the ACGME's new accreditation system. To date, little information has been collected regarding the value of CLER. Objective The purpose of this study is to collect information on designated institutional officials' (DIOs') perspectives about the initial CLER visits conducted at their institutions. Methods The authors created and distributed a survey to DIOs about their initial CLER visits. Demographic data were compared across survey responses with Spearman's rank correlation and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results The authors received responses from 63% of DIOs (186 of 297) at institutions that participated in the initial CLER visits, with 88% (164 of 186) having served as DIO during the visit. Seventy-two percent (114 of 158) reported institutional changes to address CLER focus areas prior to the visit, yet only 32% (51 of 157) reported that additional resources were allocated to these areas after the site visit. Sixty-five percent (102 of 156) reported institutional executive leadership was positive about participating in CLER; 85% (134 of 158) reported that ACGME conducted the visits efficiently; 84% (133 of 158) reported that the site visit accurately assessed the institution's performance in the CLER focus areas; and 60% (93 of 156) reported CLER provided high-value information. Conclusion Survey results from DIOs suggest that CLER is an effective mechanism to improve the learning environment. Common concerns included limited advance notice for the site visit and disruptions of clinical practice.