Navin L Kumar1,2, Molly L Perencevich3,4, Jerry S Trier3,4. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. nlkumar@partners.org. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. nlkumar@partners.org. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 4. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inpatient training is a key component of gastroenterology (GI) fellowship programs nationwide, yet little is known about perceptions of the inpatient training experience. AIM: To compare the content, objectives and quality of the inpatient training experience as perceived by program directors (PD) and fellows in US ACGME-accredited GI fellowship programs. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide, online-based survey of GI PDs and fellows at the conclusion of the 2016 academic year. We queried participants about (1) the current models of inpatient training, (2) the content, objectives, and quality of the inpatient training experience, and (3) the frequency and quality of educational activities on the inpatient service. We analyzed five-point Likert items and rank assessments as continuous variables by an independent t test and compared proportions using the Chi-square test. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 48.4% (75/155) for PDs and a total of 194 fellows completed the survey, with both groups reporting the general GI consult team (>90%) as the primary model of inpatient training. PDs and fellows agreed on the ranking of all queried responsibilities of the inpatient fellow to develop during the inpatient service. However, fellows indicated that attendings spent less time teaching and provided less formal feedback than that perceived by PDs (p < 0.0001). PDs rated the overall quality of the inpatient training experience (p < 0.0001) and education on the wards (p = 0.0003) as better than overall ratings by fellows. CONCLUSION: Although GI fellows and PDs agree on the importance of specific fellow responsibilities on the inpatient service, fellows report experiencing less teaching and feedback from attendings than that perceived by PDs. Committing more time to education and assessment may improve fellows' perceptions of the inpatient training experience.
BACKGROUND: Inpatient training is a key component of gastroenterology (GI) fellowship programs nationwide, yet little is known about perceptions of the inpatient training experience. AIM: To compare the content, objectives and quality of the inpatient training experience as perceived by program directors (PD) and fellows in US ACGME-accredited GI fellowship programs. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide, online-based survey of GI PDs and fellows at the conclusion of the 2016 academic year. We queried participants about (1) the current models of inpatient training, (2) the content, objectives, and quality of the inpatient training experience, and (3) the frequency and quality of educational activities on the inpatient service. We analyzed five-point Likert items and rank assessments as continuous variables by an independent t test and compared proportions using the Chi-square test. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 48.4% (75/155) for PDs and a total of 194 fellows completed the survey, with both groups reporting the general GI consult team (>90%) as the primary model of inpatient training. PDs and fellows agreed on the ranking of all queried responsibilities of the inpatient fellow to develop during the inpatient service. However, fellows indicated that attendings spent less time teaching and provided less formal feedback than that perceived by PDs (p < 0.0001). PDs rated the overall quality of the inpatient training experience (p < 0.0001) and education on the wards (p = 0.0003) as better than overall ratings by fellows. CONCLUSION: Although GI fellows and PDs agree on the importance of specific fellow responsibilities on the inpatient service, fellows report experiencing less teaching and feedback from attendings than that perceived by PDs. Committing more time to education and assessment may improve fellows' perceptions of the inpatient training experience.
Entities:
Keywords:
Assessment; Education; Fellowship; Training
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Eric S Holmboe; Denham S Ward; Richard K Reznick; Peter J Katsufrakis; Karen M Leslie; Vimla L Patel; Donna D Ray; Elizabeth A Nelson Journal: Acad Med Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Malathi Srinivasan; Su-Ting T Li; Fredrick J Meyers; Daniel D Pratt; John B Collins; Clarence Braddock; Kelley M Skeff; Daniel C West; Mark Henderson; Robert E Hales; Donald M Hilty Journal: Acad Med Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Pichamol Jirapinyo; Rachel S Hunt; Ying P Tabak; Deborah D Proctor; Frederick L Makrauer Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Jennifer L Dotson; Tolulope Falaiye; Josh B Bricker; Jennifer Strople; Joel Rosh Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: S G Patel; R Keswani; G Elta; S Saini; P Menard-Katcher; J Del Valle; L Hosford; A Myers; D Ahnen; P Schoenfeld; S Wani Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Elizabeth M Haney; Christina Nicolaidis; Alan Hunter; Benjamin K S Chan; Thomas G Cooney; Judith L Bowen Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2006-07-06 Impact factor: 2.463