Development of a Successful Scholarly Activity and Research Program for Subspecialty Trainees

Resident Scholarly Activity for Diagnostic Radiology Residency - A Point System Approach

Scholarly activity is an important aspect of diagnostic radiology residency training, however, there is no clear standard for what is expected and deemed appropriate for scholarly activity. This article discusses the rationale and development of a point system approach for resident scholarly activity at our diagnostic radiology residency program.

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residency Quality Improvement and Research Curriculum: Design and Implementation

ABSTRACT

Physical medicine and rehabilitation residency programs do not demonstrate a uniform level of training and mentorship for resident scholarly activities related in part to variable utilization of standardized curricula. The aim of this study was to design, develop, implement, and evaluate a structured Quality Improvement and Research Curriculum for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency program in academic year 2015 using standardized methodology. A combination of five-phase project-lifecycle and six-step medical-curriculum development methodologies was used to integrate existing resources into five institutional domains: (1) Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Program; (2) Research Mentorship Program; (3) Rehab in Review; (4) Publication and Presentation Resources, and (5) Research and QI Lecture Series. Dedicated resident-faculty teams were created for individual domains and for the overall curriculum. Written materials developed included scope documents, reporting forms, and tracking tables. A dedicated webpage on the department website served as an accessible resource. A bimonthly Updates newsletter highlighted ongoing resident achievements. Program and resident outcome metrics were evaluated at the mid and end of academic year 2015. Excellent resident and good faculty participation in the curriculum was observed. Resident publication and presentation productivity improved. Time was the biggest barrier to success. Key factors for success included phased implementation, dedicated teams, scope clarity, accessible resources, personnel support, resident champions, and faculty mentorship.

Interventions to increase research publications in graduate medical education trainees: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Competency-based educational models recommend trainee exposure to research, but the best methods for Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs to accomplish this have not been clarified. The objective of this study was to quantify published interventions to generate resident research and compare effectiveness among those interventions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of English-language articles of studies of GME programs was performed, describing resident research interventions and quantifying the number of publications as an outcome.

RESULTS

The search produced 13,688 potentially relevant articles, and included 47 articles in the final synthesis. Publication effectiveness was calculated as publications per year. The top ten programs for publication effectiveness were compared to others for interventions chosen. Interventions were characterized as research director, protected time, research requirement, research mentor, curricula, research assistant, biostatistician, information technology support, research fund, pay-for-performance plans, and celebration of accomplishments. Total number of different interventions was not significantly associated with primary outcome (r = 0.20, p = 0.18). When comparing the top ten programs to the others, appointment of a research director was statistically more prevalent in those programs (70% vs. 30%, p = 0.02), while presence of a defined curriculum was more common (90% vs. 57%, p = 0.052) but not statistically significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Leadership interventions (directors, curricula) are associated with successful GME research efforts.

Graduate medical education scholarly activities initiatives: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

According to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education residents "should participate in scholarly activity." The development of a sustainable, successful resident scholarship program is a difficult task faced by graduate medical education leadership.

METHODS

A medical librarian conducted a systematic literature search for English language articles published on scholarly activities initiatives in Graduate Medical Education (GME) between January 2003 and March 31 2017. Inclusion criteria included implementing a graduate medical education research curriculum or initiative designed to enhance intern, resident, or fellow scholarly activities using a control or comparison group. We defined major outcomes as increases in publications or presentations. Random effects meta-analysis was used to compare the rate of publications before and after implementation of curriculum or initiative.

RESULTS

We identified 32 relevant articles. Twenty-nine (91%) reported on resident publications, with 35% (10/29) reporting statistically significant increases. Fifteen articles (47%) reported on regional, national, or international presentations, with only 13% (2/15) reporting a statistically significant increase in productivity. Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis; for these studies, the post-initiative publication rate was estimated to be 2.6 times the pre-intervention rate (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.3; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review identified 32 articles describing curricula and initiatives used by GME programs to increase scholarly activity. The three most frequently reported initiatives were mentors (88%), curriculum (59%), and protected time (59%). Although no specific strategy was identified as paramount to improved productivity, meta-analysis revealed that the publication rate was significantly higher following the implementation of an initiative. Thus, we conclude that a culture of emphasis on resident scholarship is the most important step. We call for well-designed research studies with control or comparison groups and a power analysis focused on identifying best practices for future scholarly activities curricula and initiatives.