Leasure, Emily L.

Background Internal medicine (IM) resident physicians spend a considerable amount of time managing their inbox as part of their longitudinal continuity clinic experience. There are no standardized guidelines for how programs should train, monitor, or supervise residents in this type of patient care. Objective To understand how IM residency programs educate, monitor, and supervise resident electronic health record (EHR) inbox management as part of their longitudinal continuity clinic and determine whether patient safety events have occurred due to EHR inbox-related patient care decisions made by unsupervised resident physicians. Methods In August 2021, 439 program directors at accredited US IM residency programs who were members of the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine (APDIM) were asked 12 questions developed by the study authors and APDIM survey committee members regarding resident EHR inbox management as part of the annual APDIM survey. Results Two hundred and sixty-seven (61%) PDs responded. The majority (224 of 267, 84%) of programs provided guidelines for expected message response times; less than half (115, 43%) monitored timeliness metrics. Only half (135; 51%) of programs required faculty supervision of inbox messages for all residents; 28% (76) did not require supervision for any residents. Twenty-one percent of PDs (56) reported awareness of a patient safety event occurring due to an unsupervised resident inbox-related patient care decision. Conclusions Substantial variability exists in how IM residency programs train, monitor, supervise, and provide coverage for resident inbox work. Program directors are aware of patient safety events resulting from unsupervised resident inbox management.

Abstract Introduction Medical education is moving to conceptualise feedback as a bidirectional learning conversation. Within this conversation, learners experience a tension between assessment and feedback. That perceived tension affects learners’ outward performances. In this study, we aimed to characterise residents’ experiences with this tension and its effect on learner authenticity within feedback conversations. Methods In this constructivist grounded theory study, the authors were informed by Goffman's theory of impression management. During data analysis, Dweck's theory of mindset was adopted. The authors conducted semi‐structured interviews with 15 internal medicine residents. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively, using constant comparison to identify themes coinciding with impression management and mindset, ultimately developing a theoretical model to help explain residents’ responses to tensions within feedback conversations. Results Residents constantly felt ‘scrutinized’, and this affected their engagement in feedback conversations. They staged a performance within those conversations, linked to their underlying mindset: growth or fixed. Growth mindset was characterised by a focus on development as a physician and was associated with asking questions and seeking opportunities for growth. Fixed mindset was characterised by a focus on achieving a favourable evaluation and was associated with a hesitation to ask questions when faced with uncertainty and admit opportunities for growth, because they were concerned about impression management. Context influenced mindset and impression management. Residents adopted a fixed mindset and managed impressions when they perceived the permanence or consequences of evaluations within feedback. Residents adopted a growth mindset when they trusted the supervisor. Discussion Residents assess the context of feedback conversations, altering the authenticity of their behaviours. Context, including the perceptions of formal assessment and relationships with supervisors, affected residents’ mindset and impression management. Providing space for relationship‐building and clarifying the purpose and structure of assessment may be helpful in supporting effective learning conversations in graduate medical education.