Dupras, Denise M.

Abstract Health and biomedical science-related academic societies have played significant roles in the development and evolution of science and medicine, as well as the evolution of disciplines, including the diversification of medicine into specialties and subspecialties. They have also had formative roles in the development of clinical practice, professionalism, and training standards. The communities they establish promote knowledge creation and dissemination, provide career and professional development opportunities, articulate professional matters, offer networking opportunities, provide recognition, support members, and perform public engagement and advocacy work. They also play increasingly important roles in educating the public and disseminating objective, evidence-based medical and scientific information. Academic societies face challenges related to membership (recruiting new members and engaging and retaining current members), technology, hosting meetings and conferences, generational shifts (e.g., in demographics and attitudes toward working conditions, career paths, work-life integration), costs and logistics related to operations, and morale within institutions and professions. The Council of Faculty and Academic Societies of the Association of American Medical Colleges plays a unique role in supporting academic medical and related societies by providing an interprofessional forum for their interaction and dialogue, and is a vehicle for asserting their collective voice. To the extent that past is prologue, future advances in health care and science will depend, in part, on the resilience of academic societies and on the health professional workforces that they nourish.

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.

The objective was to quantitatively evaluate clinician characteristics associated with unwarranted practice variation, and how clinical care algorithms influence this variation. Participants (142 physicians, 53 nurse practitioners, and 9 physician assistants in family medicine, internal medicine, and cardiology) described their management of 4 clinical vignettes, first based on their own practice (unguided), then using care algorithms (guided). The authors quantitatively estimated variation in management. Cardiologists demonstrated 17% lower variation in unguided responses than generalists (fold-change 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68, 0.97]), and those who agreed that practice variation can realistically be reduced had 16% lower variation than those who did not (fold-change 0.84 [CI, 0.71, 0.99]). A 17% reduction in variation was observed for guided responses compared with baseline (unguided) responses (fold-change 0.83 [CI, 0.76, 0.90]). Differences were otherwise similar across clinician subgroups and attitudes. Unwarranted practice variation was similar across most clinician subgroups. The authors conclude that care algorithms can reduce variation in management.

Purpose To begin to quantify and understand the use of the flipped classroom (FC)—a progressive, effective, curricular model—in internal medicine (IM) education in relation to residency program and program director (PD) characteristics. Method The authors conducted a survey that included the Flipped Classroom Perception Instrument (FCPI) in 2015 regarding programs’ use and PDs’ perceptions of the FC model. Results Among the 368 IM residency programs, PDs at 227 (61.7%) responded to the survey and 206 (56.0%) completed the FCPI. Regarding how often programs used the FC model, 34 of the 206 PDs (16.5%) reported “never”; 44 (21.4%) reported “very rarely”; another 44 (21.4%) reported “somewhat rarely”; 59 (28.6%) reported “sometimes”; 16 (7.8%) reported “somewhat often”; and 9 (4.4%) reported “very often.” The mean FCPI score (standard deviation [SD]) for the in-class application factor (4.11 [0.68]) was higher (i.e., more favorable) than for the preclass activity factor (3.94 [0.65]) ( P < .001). FC perceptions (mean [SD]) were higher among younger PDs (≤ 50 years, 4.12 [0.62]; > 50 years, 3.94 [0.61]; P = .04) and women compared with men (4.28 [0.56] vs. 3.91 [0.62]; P < .001). PDs with better perceptions of FCs had higher odds of using FCs (odds ratio, 4.768; P < .001). Conclusions Most IM programs use the FC model at least to some extent, and PDs prefer the interactive in-class components over the independent preclass activities. PDs who are women and younger perceived the model more favorably.

Purpose To obtain feedback from internal medicine residents, a key stakeholder group, regarding both the skills needed for internship and the fourth-year medical school courses that prepared them for residency. This feedback could inform fourth-year curriculum redesign efforts. Method All internal medicine residents taking the 2013–2014 Internal Medicine In-Training Examination were asked to rank the importance of learning 10 predefined skills prior to internship and to use a dropdown menu of 11 common fourth-year courses to rank the 3 most helpful in preparing for internship. The predefined skills were chosen based on a review of the literature, a national subinternship curriculum, and expert consensus. Chi-square statistics were used to test for differences in responses between training levels. Results Of the 24,820 internal medicine residents who completed the exam, 20,484 (83%) completed the survey, had complete identification numbers, and consented to have their responses used for research. The three skills most frequently rated as very important were identifying when to seek additional help and expertise, prioritizing clinical tasks and managing time efficiently, and communicating with other providers around care transitions. The subinternship/acting internship was most often selected as being the most helpful course in preparing for internship. Conclusions These findings indicate which skills and fourth-year medical school courses internal medicine residents found most helpful in preparing for internship and confirm the findings of prior studies highlighting the perceived value of subinternships. Internal medicine residents and medical educators agree on the skills students should learn prior to internship.