Rachel S Casas1, Christine A Prifti2, Alexandra E Bachorik2, Heather Stuckey3, Mindy Sobota4, Cynthia H Chuang3,5, Carol S Weisman5. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Academic Support Building, 90 Hope Drive, Suite 3200, Mail Code A320, Hershey, PA, USA. rcasas@pennstatehealth.psu.edu. 2. Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Academic Support Building, 90 Hope Drive, Suite 3200, Mail Code A320, Hershey, PA, USA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants are highly effective and increasingly popular. Internal Medicine (IM) clinics and residency curricula do not routinely include LARCs, which can limit patient access to these methods. In response, internists are integrating LARCs into IM practices and residency training. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the approaches, facilitators, and barriers reported by IM faculty to incorporating LARCs into IM clinics and resident education. DESIGN: We interviewed faculty who were prior or current LARC providers and/or teachers in 15 IM departments nationally. Each had implemented or attempted to implement LARC training for residents in their IM practice. Semi-structured interviews were used. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were a convenience sample of clinicians identified as key informants at each institution. APPROACH: We used inductive thematic coding analysis to identify themes in the transcribed interviews. KEY RESULTS: Fourteen respondents currently offered LARCs in their clinic and 12 were teaching these procedures to residents. LARC integration into IM clinics occurred in 3 models: (1) a dedicated procedure or women's health clinic, (2) integration into existing IM clinical sessions, or (3) an interdisciplinary IM and family medicine or gynecology clinic. Balancing clinical and educational priorities was a common theme, with chosen LARC model(s) reflecting the desired priority balance at a given institution. Most programs incorporated a mix of educational modalities, with opportunities based upon resident interest and desired educational goals. Facilitators and barriers related to clinical (equipment, workflow), educational (curriculum, outcomes), or process considerations (procedural volume, credentialing). Participants reported that support from multiple stakeholders including patients, residents, leadership, and other departments was necessary for success. CONCLUSION: The model for integration of LARCs into IM clinics and resident education depends upon the clinical resources, patient needs, stakeholder support, and educational goals of the program.
BACKGROUND: Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants are highly effective and increasingly popular. Internal Medicine (IM) clinics and residency curricula do not routinely include LARCs, which can limit patient access to these methods. In response, internists are integrating LARCs into IM practices and residency training. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the approaches, facilitators, and barriers reported by IM faculty to incorporating LARCs into IM clinics and resident education. DESIGN: We interviewed faculty who were prior or current LARC providers and/or teachers in 15 IM departments nationally. Each had implemented or attempted to implement LARC training for residents in their IM practice. Semi-structured interviews were used. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were a convenience sample of clinicians identified as key informants at each institution. APPROACH: We used inductive thematic coding analysis to identify themes in the transcribed interviews. KEY RESULTS: Fourteen respondents currently offered LARCs in their clinic and 12 were teaching these procedures to residents. LARC integration into IM clinics occurred in 3 models: (1) a dedicated procedure or women's health clinic, (2) integration into existing IM clinical sessions, or (3) an interdisciplinary IM and family medicine or gynecology clinic. Balancing clinical and educational priorities was a common theme, with chosen LARC model(s) reflecting the desired priority balance at a given institution. Most programs incorporated a mix of educational modalities, with opportunities based upon resident interest and desired educational goals. Facilitators and barriers related to clinical (equipment, workflow), educational (curriculum, outcomes), or process considerations (procedural volume, credentialing). Participants reported that support from multiple stakeholders including patients, residents, leadership, and other departments was necessary for success. CONCLUSION: The model for integration of LARCs into IM clinics and resident education depends upon the clinical resources, patient needs, stakeholder support, and educational goals of the program.