BACKGROUND: Individualized education plans (IEP) are commonly used in nonmedical educational programs to define students' deficiencies and action plans for addressing them. There are no reports of using IEP for medical education. SETTING: Internal medicine residency of a community teaching hospital. METHODS: Residents requiring IEP were identified by a consensus of faculty members. IEPs, overseen by mentors, included: 1. List of deficiencies, 2. Techniques for remediation, 3. Schedule for meetings and re-evaluation of IEP progress. Demographic and evaluative data were abstracted from the performance files of internal medicine residents who served in the program between 2003 and 2010. Characteristics and educational outcomes of those receiving IEPs were compared to those not requiring IEPs. RESULTS: Of 92 residents, 16 received IEPs; 13 for medical knowledge, four for professionalism and one for communication.Average age was greater (35.2 vs 30.3 y; P=0.004) and graduation less recent (8.7 vs 4.8 y; P=0.03). USMLE step I and American Board of Internal Medicine in-service scores were lower in those with IEP (82.6 vs 89.4; P=0.001; 44.6 vs 68.5 percentile relative to same-PGY level; P=0.01). Three residents repeated a PGY year (two successfully) and four completed two to six extra months at the same PGY level. All but two residents in the program between 2003 and 2010 passed Boards on their first attempt; neither had an IEP. Of the 12 with successful IEPs, three graduated to primary-care positions, two to hospitalist positions, and six to subspecialty fellowships; one was lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: A formal IEP process similar to that employed in nonmedical education was associated with successful graduation and board certification in a majority of medical trainees who required remediation.
BACKGROUND: Individualized education plans (IEP) are commonly used in nonmedical educational programs to define students' deficiencies and action plans for addressing them. There are no reports of using IEP for medical education. SETTING: Internal medicine residency of a community teaching hospital. METHODS: Residents requiring IEP were identified by a consensus of faculty members. IEPs, overseen by mentors, included: 1. List of deficiencies, 2. Techniques for remediation, 3. Schedule for meetings and re-evaluation of IEP progress. Demographic and evaluative data were abstracted from the performance files of internal medicine residents who served in the program between 2003 and 2010. Characteristics and educational outcomes of those receiving IEPs were compared to those not requiring IEPs. RESULTS: Of 92 residents, 16 received IEPs; 13 for medical knowledge, four for professionalism and one for communication.Average age was greater (35.2 vs 30.3 y; P=0.004) and graduation less recent (8.7 vs 4.8 y; P=0.03). USMLE step I and American Board of Internal Medicine in-service scores were lower in those with IEP (82.6 vs 89.4; P=0.001; 44.6 vs 68.5 percentile relative to same-PGY level; P=0.01). Three residents repeated a PGY year (two successfully) and four completed two to six extra months at the same PGY level. All but two residents in the program between 2003 and 2010 passed Boards on their first attempt; neither had an IEP. Of the 12 with successful IEPs, three graduated to primary-care positions, two to hospitalist positions, and six to subspecialty fellowships; one was lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: A formal IEP process similar to that employed in nonmedical education was associated with successful graduation and board certification in a majority of medical trainees who required remediation.