S K Klasko1, R V Cummings, L R Glazerman. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lehigh Valley Hospital, Allentown, PA 18105-7017, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to investigate methods for standardization of data collection across residency training programs in obstetrics and gynecology. STUDY DESIGN: A survey was developed and sent to all accredited residency programs in the United States and Canada. It assessed each program's current data collection method and whether the system could track discrepancies, account for completeness of data, or collect primary care data. The second part of the survey was designed to assess program director consistency in assignment of resident responsibility. RESULTS: In 78.5% of programs residents used a paper-based system. Only 27.1% and 31.3% of the residency programs, respectively, had systems for resolving resident responsibility conflicts or determining accuracy percentages. Few (8.3%) program directors were able to collect primary care data. There were wide variations among program directors in assignment of resident responsibility in the simulated cases, indicating different interpretations of Residency Review Committee reporting criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Most resident data systems in use do not promote or require standardization of data collection; therefore comparisons between programs would be difficult. The ideal system would be flexible, require standardization of data collection, enable direct transfer to Residency Review Committee forms, be translatable to any residency program, and allow meaningful intraprogram and interprogram comparisons.
OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to investigate methods for standardization of data collection across residency training programs in obstetrics and gynecology. STUDY DESIGN: A survey was developed and sent to all accredited residency programs in the United States and Canada. It assessed each program's current data collection method and whether the system could track discrepancies, account for completeness of data, or collect primary care data. The second part of the survey was designed to assess program director consistency in assignment of resident responsibility. RESULTS: In 78.5% of programs residents used a paper-based system. Only 27.1% and 31.3% of the residency programs, respectively, had systems for resolving resident responsibility conflicts or determining accuracy percentages. Few (8.3%) program directors were able to collect primary care data. There were wide variations among program directors in assignment of resident responsibility in the simulated cases, indicating different interpretations of Residency Review Committee reporting criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Most resident data systems in use do not promote or require standardization of data collection; therefore comparisons between programs would be difficult. The ideal system would be flexible, require standardization of data collection, enable direct transfer to Residency Review Committee forms, be translatable to any residency program, and allow meaningful intraprogram and interprogram comparisons.