When Old Habits Train a New Generation: Findings From a National Survey of Internal Medicine Program Directors on Procedural Training

Validation of an Educational Tool for Skin Abscess Incision and Drainage by Delphi and Angoff Methods

BACKGROUND

Bedside incision and drainage (I&D) of skin abscesses is a common medical procedure performed in a variety of medical settings. Yet, there is a paucity of published validated educational tools to teach and assess competency for this procedure.

OBJECTIVE

To validate an educational tool to teach and assess competency for bedside I&D of skin abscesses via the Delphi consensus and Angoff standard setting methods.

DESIGN

Expert consensus on the importance of each procedural step in the educational tool was obtained using the Delphi method, consisting of four rounds of iterative revisions based on input from a panel of experts. The passing cut-off score for a proficient provider was determined using the modified dichotomous Angoff method.

PARTICIPANTS

All participants met the minimum criteria of active involvement in resident education and performance of at least 20 skin abscess I&D's within the past 5 years. Participant specialties included general surgery, emergency medicine, and internal medicine.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was consensus on procedural steps and errors, defined as an interquartile range ≤ 2 on a 9-point Likert scale. A cut-off score was determined by the average across all respondents for the anticipated number of errors that would be committed by a provider with the level of proficiency defined in the survey. Qualitative input was incorporated into the educational tool.

KEY RESULTS

At the end of four rounds of review via the Delphi process, participants achieved consensus on 93% of items on the clinical checklist and 85% of errors on the assessment checklist. Via the modified dichotomous Angoff method, the determined passing cut-off for competency was 6 out of 22 errors.

CONCLUSION

An educational and evaluation tool for bedside I&D of skin abscesses was validated via the Delphi and Angoff methods.

Implementing an Interdisciplinary Procedure Curriculum

INTRODUCTION

This curriculum was designed to improve access to procedures for our internal medicine residents.

METHODS

We created an interdisciplinary procedure course (IDPC) composed of two simulation sessions and a one-week procedural rotation supervised by multiple specialties including nephrology, cardiology, cardiothoracic anesthesiology, general anesthesiology, and interventional radiology. After the course, residents completed two surveys documenting the number of procedures and their level of confidence on a Likert scale (1 = very unconfident to 5 = very confident) prior to and after completing the curriculum.

RESULTS

Sixteen residents participated in the course from September 2021 to June 2022. The collective number of procedures performed by these 16 residents increased from 176 to 343 after a one-week rotation. For arterial lines, the proportion of residents that reported an improvement in confidence scores was 0.44 (95% confidence interval 0.23 to 1, p-value of 0.60). The proportion of residents that had an increase in their confidence performing central lines was 0.63 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1, p-value of 0.23). For intubations, the proportion of residents that reported an improvement in confidence was 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1, p-value of 0.0006).

CONCLUSION

By collaborating with multiple specialties, residents almost doubled the number of procedures performed during training and reported an increased level of confidence in procedural performance for airway intubation. We learned residents want to improve their access to procedures and described a curriculum that was easily implemented.

Effectiveness of training primary care internal medicine residents in etonogestrel implants and impact on their future practice: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of an etonogestrel implant training program within a primary care Internal Medicine residency training program.

STUDY DESIGN

We surveyed graduates of our primary care Internal Medicine residency program in the Bronx, New York who performed implant procedures though the first 32 months after implementation of a monthly faculty-supervised resident implant clinic. We assessed the number of implants placed and removed per graduate, and surveyed graduates' satisfaction with the implant training program, perceived competence with implant procedures, and intent and ability to perform implant procedures and barriers to performing implant procedures postgraduation.

RESULTS

Between July 2017 and February 2020, 14 residents placed a total of 34 devices and removed four. All 14 program graduates completed the survey in August 2020. All but one respondent felt this training was valuable and 11 felt competent placing implants without supervision. Although 10 planned to provide implants following graduation, none have been able to, largely because of credentialing and clinic-practice level barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary care Internal Medicine program graduates we surveyed (n = 14) valued our etonogestrel implant training program and perceived competence, particularly with implant placement. However, even those who intended to provide etonogestrel implants postgraduation were unable to do so.

IMPLICATIONS

Internal Medicine residents trained to place and remove etonogestrel implants are most comfortable with implant placement. However, these physicians may face barriers related to credentialing and ambulatory practice scope when attempting to provide this care in clinical practice.

Advancing Internal Medicine Training: Experience of a Bedside Procedure Service as a Resident Elective

BACKGROUND

In 2007, the American Board of Internal Medicine eliminated numeric procedure requirements for licensing. The level of exposure to procedures during residency, and subsequent competence of graduating residents, is variable. In 2015, our institution developed a bedside procedure service (BPS) with the intent to teach ultrasound guidance and procedural training to internal medicine residents with direct supervision of technique by Hospital Medicine faculty to optimize learning, increase confidence, and improve patient safety.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we review the number and complication rates of resident procedures on a dedicated internal medicine bedside procedure service (BPS) as a resident elective.

METHODS

In this retrospective, observational, single-center study, we reviewed internally collected data from BPS procedures performed from 2015-2019. The BPS offers a variety of procedures done with ultrasound guidance at an adult tertiary care referral center. BPS services are available to all inpatient hospital services. A rotation with the BPS was offered as a stand-alone resident elective for the first time in 2015.

RESULTS

69 residents performed a total of 2700 ultrasound-guided/assisted procedures and 146 diagnostic ultrasound scans from 2015-2019. Residents performed an average of 40 procedures during their elective month. There were 5 resident performed procedural complications with an overall complication rate of 0.19%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our BPS increased procedural opportunities for residents and allowed for real-time feedback by an experienced faculty member in a one-on-one setting. A dedicated rotation allows the time to focus on becoming proficient in invasive procedures with expert supervision.

Impact of Risk and Volume on Procedural Traning of Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellows

Background: Invasive procedures are a core aspect of pulmonary and critical care practice. Procedures performed in the intensive care unit can be divided into high-risk, low-volume (HRLV) procedures and low-risk, high-volume (LRHV) procedures. HRLV procedures include cricothyroidotomy, pericardiocentesis, Blakemore tube placement, and bronchial blocker placement. LRHV procedures include arterial line placement, central venous catheter placement, thoracentesis, and flexible bronchoscopy. Despite the frequency and importance of procedures in critical care medicine, little is known about the similarities and differences in procedural training between different Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) and Critical Care Medicine (CCM) training programs. Furthermore, differences in procedural training practices for HRLV and LRHV procedures have not previously been described.

Objective: To assess procedural training practices in PCCM and CCM fellowship programs in the United States, and compare differences in training between HRLV and LRHV procedures.

Methods: A novel survey instrument was developed and disseminated to PCCM and CCM program directors and associate program directors at PCCM and CCM fellowship programs in the United States to assess procedural teaching practices for HRLV and LRHV procedures.

Results: The survey was sent to 221 fellowship programs, 168 PCCM and 34 CCM, with 70 unique respondents (31.7% response rate). Of the procedural educational strategies assessed, each strategy was used significantly more frequently for LRHV versus HRLV procedures. The majority of respondents (51.1%) report having no dedicated training for HRLV procedures versus 6.9% reporting no dedicated training for any LRHV procedure (P < 0.001). For HRLV procedures, 76.9% of respondents indicated that there was no set number of procedures required to determine competency, versus 25.3% for LRHV procedures (P < 0.001). For LRHV procedures, fellows were allowed to perform procedures independently without supervision 21.7% of the time versus 3.9% for HRLV procedures (P = 0.004). Program directors’ confidence in their ability to determine fellows’ competence in performing procedures was significantly lower for HRLV versus LRHV versus HRLV procedures (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Significant differences exist in procedural training education for PCCM and CCM fellows for LRHV versus HRLV procedures, and awareness of this discrepancy presents an opportunity to address this educational gap in PCCM and CCM fellowship training.

A survey demonstrating that the procedural experience of residents in internal medicine, critical care and emergency medicine is poor: training in ultrasound is required to rectify this

BACKGROUND

Training in procedural skills is often suboptimal. The aim of this study was to quantify the needs of residents in internal medicine (IM), critical care (CC), and emergency medicine (EM) for instruction in ultrasound-guided procedures.

METHODS

All IM, EM and CC residents (n = 200) at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey to identify skill and experience gaps. The contribution of procedural skills to patient care (i.e. applicability) and proficiency in the sterile technique required to perform ultrasound-guided procedures were rated on Likert scales. Data on training, accreditation, and experience with and without ultrasound were collected.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 72% (IM 91%, CC 100%, EM 40%). Although the sample reported that procedural skills were very applicable, 19% (IM n = 25, EM n = 2) had not performed any procedures. However, five residents were accredited in point-of-care ultrasound, 61% of the sample had performed ultrasound-guided procedures and 65% had used landmark techniques. Whilst more internists had performed procedures using landmark techniques, CC and EM residents had performed more ultrasound-guided procedures. Whilst CC residents had not missed any opportunities to perform procedures because supervisors were less available, EM (6) and IM (89) residents had. Whilst skill gaps were only identified in the IM residency programme, experience gaps were present in all three residency programmes. The IM residency programme had larger experience gaps than the CC and EM programmes for all procedural skills.

DISCUSSION

Residents in IM, CC and EM perceive that ultrasound-guided procedures are relevant to their practice. However, the IM residents performed fewer procedures than CC residents and EM residents at least partly because internists also lack skills in ultrasound. Training in ultrasound-guided procedures may reduce the use of landmark techniques and improve patient safety. Residents in IM, CC and EM therefore require training in ultrasound-guided procedures.