John T Ratelle1, Andrew J Halvorsen, Jay Mandrekar, Adam P Sawatsky, Darcy A Reed, Thomas J Beckman. 1. J.T. Ratelle is a consultant, Division of Hospital Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, and assistant professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota. A.J. Halvorsen is a statistician, Internal Medicine Residency Office, Mayo Clinic, and assistant professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota. J. Mandrekar is a consultant, Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, and professor of biostatistics and neurology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota. A.P. Sawatsky is a consultant, Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, and assistant professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota. D.A. Reed is a consultant, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, and associate professor of medical education and professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota. T.J. Beckman is a consultant, Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, and professor of medical education and medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Successful training of internal medicine (IM) residents requires accurate assessments. Patients could assess IM residents in a hospital setting, but medical educators must understand how contextual factors may affect assessments. The objective was to investigate relationships between patient, resident, and hospital-encounter characteristics and the results of patient assessments of IM resident professionalism. METHOD: The authors performed a prospective cohort study of postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1) IM residents and their patients at 4 general medicine inpatient teaching services at Mayo Clinic Hospital-Rochester, Saint Marys Campus in Rochester, Minnesota, from July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. Patient assessments of resident professionalism were adapted from validated instruments. Multivariable modeling with generalized estimating equations was used to determine associations between patient assessment scores and characteristics of residents, residents' clinical performance and evaluations (including professionalism assessments in other settings), patients, and hospital encounters and to account for repeated assessments of residents. RESULTS: A total of 409 patients assessed 72 PGY-1 residents (mean [SD], 5.7 [3.0] patient assessments per resident). In the multivariable model, only the highest rating out of 5 levels for overall satisfaction with hospital stay was significantly associated with patient assessment scores of resident professionalism (β [SE], 0.80 [0.08]; P < .001). Hospitalized patients' assessment scores of resident professionalism were not significantly correlated with assessment scores of resident professionalism in other clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients' assessment scores of in-hospital resident professionalism were strongly correlated with overall patient satisfaction with hospital stay but were not correlated with resident professionalism in other settings. The limitations of patient evaluations should be considered before incorporating these evaluations into programs of assessment.
PURPOSE: Successful training of internal medicine (IM) residents requires accurate assessments. Patients could assess IM residents in a hospital setting, but medical educators must understand how contextual factors may affect assessments. The objective was to investigate relationships between patient, resident, and hospital-encounter characteristics and the results of patient assessments of IM resident professionalism. METHOD: The authors performed a prospective cohort study of postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1) IM residents and their patients at 4 general medicine inpatient teaching services at Mayo Clinic Hospital-Rochester, Saint Marys Campus in Rochester, Minnesota, from July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. Patient assessments of resident professionalism were adapted from validated instruments. Multivariable modeling with generalized estimating equations was used to determine associations between patient assessment scores and characteristics of residents, residents' clinical performance and evaluations (including professionalism assessments in other settings), patients, and hospital encounters and to account for repeated assessments of residents. RESULTS: A total of 409 patients assessed 72 PGY-1 residents (mean [SD], 5.7 [3.0] patient assessments per resident). In the multivariable model, only the highest rating out of 5 levels for overall satisfaction with hospital stay was significantly associated with patient assessment scores of resident professionalism (β [SE], 0.80 [0.08]; P < .001). Hospitalized patients' assessment scores of resident professionalism were not significantly correlated with assessment scores of resident professionalism in other clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients' assessment scores of in-hospital resident professionalism were strongly correlated with overall patient satisfaction with hospital stay but were not correlated with resident professionalism in other settings. The limitations of patient evaluations should be considered before incorporating these evaluations into programs of assessment.