Remediation in the context of the competencies: a survey of pediatrics residency program directors

Resident Remediation: A National Survey of Urology Program Directors

OBJECTIVES

To describe formal remediation rates and processes in urology training programs nationally.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We performed a cross-sectional study by surveying program directors (PDs) through the Society of Academic Urologists. Formal remediation was defined as the process initiated when resident competency deficiencies were significant enough to necessitate documentation and notification of the Graduate Medical Education (GME) office. The primary outcome was the prevalence of urology programs that initiated formal remediation over the past 5 years. Secondary outcomes included reported competency deficiencies and formal remediation processes.

RESULTS

Across 148 institutions, 73 (49%) PDs responded to the survey. The majority of PDs (67%, 49/73) stated that at least 1 resident underwent formal remediation over the last 5 years (median 1). "Professionalism" and "Interpersonal and Communication Skills" were the most common competency deficiencies that prompted formal remediation, whereas "Technical Skill" was the least common. While the majority of respondents notified the GME office of residents undergoing remediation, formal remediation plans varied from faculty coaching and mentorship (80%, 39/49) to simulation training (10%, 5/49). Absence of documented faculty feedback on poor performance was the most commonly cited barrier to formal remediation. The majority of PDs reported documentation in a resident's file (81%, 59/73); however, remediation processes differed with only half of PDs reporting that GME offices were routinely involved in creating and overseeing corrective action plans (56%, 41/73). Over the study period, 15% (11/73) of PDs did not promote a resident to the next year of training, and 23% (17/73) of PDs stated "Yes" to graduating a resident who they would not trust to care for a loved one.

CONCLUSIONS

Formal remediation among urology residency programs is common, and processes vary across institutions. The most common competency areas prompting remediation were "Professionalism" and "Interpersonal and Communication Skills." Future research should address developing resources to facilitate resident remediation.

Is insufficient introspection a reason to terminate residency training? - Scrutinising introspection among residents who disputed dismissal

INTRODUCTION

Insufficient introspection as part of the 4I's model of medical professionalism (introspection, integrity, interaction, and involvement) is considered an important impediment in trainees. How insufficient introspection relates to decisions to terminate residency training remains unclear. Insights into this subject provide opportunities to improve the training of medical professionals.

METHODS

We analysed the Dutch Conciliation Board decisions regarding residents dismissed from training between 2011 and 2020. We selected the decisions on residents deemed 'insufficient' regarding introspection as part of the CanMEDS professional domain and compared their characteristics with the decisions about residents without reported insufficiencies on introspection.

RESULTS

Of the 120 decisions, 86 dismissed residents were unable to fulfil the requirements of the CanMEDS professional domain. Insufficient introspection was the most prominent insufficiency (73/86). These 73 decisions described more residents' insufficiencies in CanMEDS competency domains compared to the rest of the decisions (3.8 vs. 2.7 p < 0.001), without significant differences regarding gender or years of training.

CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient introspection in residents correlates with competency shortcomings programme directors reported in dismissal disputes. The 4I's model facilitates recognition and description of unprofessional behaviours, opening avenues for assessing and developing residents' introspection, but further research is needed for effective implementation in medical education.

Unprofessional behaviour of GP residents leading to a dismissal dispute: characteristics and outcomes of those who appeal

BACKGROUND

Recognition of poor performance in General Practice trainees is important because underperformance compromises patients' health and safety. However, in General Practice, research on persistent underperformance while in training and its ultimate consequences is almost completely lacking. We aim to explore the unprofessional behaviours of residents in General Practice who were dismissed from training and who litigated against dismissal.

METHODS

We performed a structured analysis using open-source data from all General Practice cases before the Conciliation Board of the Royal Dutch Medical Association between 2011 and 2020. Anonymised law cases about residents from all Dutch GP training programmes were analysed in terms of the quantitative and qualitative aspects related to performance.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2020, 24 residents who were dismissed from training challenged their programme director's decision. Dismissed residents performed poorly in several competencies, including communication, medical expertise and most prominently, professionalism. Over 90% of dismissed residents failed on professionalism. Most lacked self-awareness and/or failed to profit from feedback. Approximately 80% failed on communication, and about 60% on medical expertise as well. A large majority (more than 80%) of dismissed residents had previously participated in some form of remediation.

CONCLUSIONS

Deficiencies in both professionalism and communication were the most prevalent findings among the dismissed General Practice residents. These two deficiencies overlapped considerably. Dismissed residents who challenged their programme director's decision were considered to lack self-awareness, which requires introspection and the appreciation of feedback from others.

Dutch dismissal practices: characteristics, consequences, and contrasts in residents' case law in community-based practice versus hospital-based specialties

BACKGROUND

In the Netherlands, 2 to 10% of the residents terminate training prematurely. Infrequently, termination of training is by dismissal. Incidentally, residents may disagree, dispute and challenge these decisions from the programme directors. Resident dismissal is always a difficult decision, most commonly made after, repeated assessments, and triangulation of the resulting assessment data and one or more remediation attempts. Nevertheless, the underlying reasons for dismissal and the policies for remediation and dismissal may differ between training programmes. Such differences may however impact the chance of remediation success, the chance of dismissal and subsequent residents' appeals.

METHOD

We included a total of 70 residents from two groups (community-based and hospital-based specialties) during 10 years of appeals. Subsequently, we compared these groups on factors potentially associated with the outcome of the conciliation board decision regarding the residents' dismissal. We focused herein on remediation strategies applied, and reasons reported to dismiss residents.

RESULTS

In both groups, the most alleged reason to dismiss residents was lack of trainability, > 97%. This was related to deficiencies in professionalism in community-based practice and medical expertise in hospital-based specialties respectively. A reason less frequently mentioned was endangerment of patient care, < 26%. However, none of these residents accused of endangerment, actually jeopardized the patients' health, probably due to the vigilance of their supervisors. Remediation strategies varied between the two groups, whereas hospital-based specialties preferred formal remediation plans in contrast to community-based practice. A multitude of remediation strategies per competency (medical expertise, professionalism, communication, management) were applied and described in these law cases.

DISCUSSION

Residents' appeals in community-based practice were significantly less likely to succeed compared to hospital-based specialties. Hypothesised explanatory factors underlying these differences include community-based practices' more prominent attention to the longitudinal assessment of professionalism, the presence of regular quarterly progress meetings, precise documentation of deficiencies, and discretion over the timing of dismissal in contrast to dismissal in the hospital-based specialties which is only formally possible during scheduled formal summative assessment meetings.

Do deficiencies in CanMEDS competencies of dismissed residents differ according to specialty?

INTRODUCTION

Program directors dismiss a small percentage of residents from residency training programs, presumably due to underperformance or lack of progress. Whether underperformance in competency domains differs by residents' specialty is unknown.

METHODS

In 2021, we analysed the case law of Dutch residents who were dismissed from training by the program director, and who challenged this dismissal before the national conciliation board between 2011 and 2020. Across medical specialties we compared which of the CanMEDS competency domains these residents failed to meet.

RESULTS

We found 116 cases of residents dismissed from their training programmes who challenged the decision of the program director before the board. In general, most residents were unable to meet the requirements of several CanMEDS competency domains (usually: medical expert, communicator, and professional). In surgery, all dismissed residents failed to meet the competency domain of the medical expert, while most of the dismissed psychiatry residents met this domain. In specialties with a primarily diagnostic task, more dismissed residents failed to meet the competency domain of the scholar, while dismissed general medicine residents (for example family medicine and nursing homecare) were less likely to do so. Residents in general medicine, more often than other specialties, however, failed to meet the competency domain of the professional.

CONCLUSION

Residents dismissed from training, who challenged their dismissal, failed to meet the requirements of multiple CanMEDS competency domains. Competency domain failures differ by specialty.

Changing the Landscape of Remediation: The Creation and Implementation of an Institution-Wide Graduate Medical Education Performance Enhancement Program

Purpose Remediation is a daunting process for both residency leadership and trainees due to several factors including limited time and resources, variable processes, and negative stigma. Our objective was to transform the remediation process by creating a transparent institution-wide program that collates tools/resources, interdepartmental faculty mentors, and positive rebranding. Methods Education leadership across seven specialties created a process for trainees with professionalism and interpersonal-communication skills deficiencies. Formalized departmental program-based improvement plan (PIP) and an institutional house staff performance enhancement plan (HPEP) were developed by consensus of triggers/behaviors. Utilizing published literature, a toolkit was created and implemented. Trainees were enrolled in HPEP if PIP was unsuccessful or exhibited ≥1 major trigger. Wellness evaluations were incorporated into the process to screen for external contributing factors. Surveys were sent to the program director (PD), faculty mentor, and trainee one month and six months after participation. Results Between 2018 and 2021, 12 trainees were enrolled. Overall feedback from PDs and the trainees was positive. The main challenge was finding mutual time for the faculty mentor and trainee to meet. Six-month surveys reported no relapses in unprofessionalism. One-year follow-up of the trainees was limited. Conclusions Utilizing an institution-wide standardized process of performance improvement with the removal of negative stereotyping is a unique approach to remediation. Initial feedback is promising, and future outcome data are necessary to assess the utility. The HPEP may be adopted by other academic institutions and may shift the attitudes about remediation and allow trainees to see the process as an opportunity for professional growth.

Can a Situational Judgment Test Identify Trainees at Risk of Professionalism Issues? A Multi-Institutional, Prospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

To determine whether overall situational judgment test (SJT) scores are associated with programs' clinical competency committee (CCC) ratings of trainee professionalism, any concerning behavior, and concerning behavior requiring active remediation at 2 time periods.

METHOD

In fall 2019, trainees from 17 U.S. programs (16 residency, 1 fellowship) took an online 15-scenario SJT developed to measure 7 dimensions of professionalism. CCC midyear and year-end (6 months and 1 year following SJT completion, respectively) professionalism scores and concern ratings were gathered for academic year 2019-2020. Analyses were conducted to determine whether overall SJT scores related to overall professionalism ratings, trainees displaying any concerns, and trainees requiring active remediation at both time periods.

RESULTS

Overall SJT scores correlated positively with midyear and year-end overall professionalism ratings ( r = .21 and .14, P &lt; .001 and = .03, respectively). Holding gender and race/ethnicity constant, a 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in overall SJT score was associated with a .20 SD increase in overall professionalism ratings at midyear ( P = .005) and a .22 SD increase at year-end ( P = .001). Holding gender and race/ethnicity constant, a 1 SD increase in overall SJT score decreased the odds of a trainee displaying any concerns by 37% (odds ratio [OR] 95% confidence interval [CI]: [.44, .87], P = .006) at midyear and 34% (OR 95% CI: [.46, .95], P = .025) at year-end and decreased the odds of a trainee requiring active remediation by 51% (OR 95% CI: [.25, .90], P = .02) at midyear.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall SJT scores correlated positively with midyear and year-end overall professionalism ratings and were associated with whether trainees exhibited any concerning behavior at midyear and year-end and whether trainees needed active remediation at midyear. Future research should investigate whether other potential professionalism measures are associated with concerning trainee behavior.

Best Practices for Remediation in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship Training

Background

Remediation of struggling learners in pulmonary and critical care fellowship programs is a challenge, even for experienced medical educators.

Objective

This evidence-based narrative review provides a framework program leaders may use to address fellows having difficulty achieving competency during fellowship training.

Methods

The relevant evidence for approaches on the basis of each learner’s needs is reviewed and interpreted in the context of fellowship training in pulmonary medicine and critical care. Issues addressed include bias in fellow assessments and remediation, the impacts of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, the specific challenges of pulmonary and critical care fellowship programs, a brief review of relevant legal issues, guidance on building and leveraging program resources, and a discussion of learner outcomes.

Results

This results in a concise, evidence-based toolkit for program leaders based around four pillars: early identification, fellow assessment, collaborative intervention, and reassessment. Important concepts also include the need for documentation, clear and written communication, and fellow-directed approaches to the creation of achievable goals.

Conclusion

Evidence-based remediation helps struggling learners in pulmonary and critical care fellowship to improve their ability to meet Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones.

Post graduate remediation programs in medicine: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Recognizing that physicians may struggle to achieve knowledge, skills, attitudes and or conduct at one or more stages during their training has highlighted the importance of the 'deliberate practice of improving performance through practising beyond one's comfort level under guidance'. However, variations in physician, program, contextual and healthcare and educational systems complicate efforts to create a consistent approach to remediation. Balancing the inevitable disparities in approaches and settings with the need for continuity and effective oversight of the remediation process, as well as the context and population specific nature of remediation, this review will scrutinise the remediation of physicians in training to better guide the design, structuring and oversight of new remediation programs.

METHODS

Krishna's Systematic Evidence Based Approach is adopted to guide this Systematic Scoping Review (SSR in SEBA) to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of this review. A structured search for articles on remediation programs for licenced physicians who have completed their pre-registration postings and who are in training positions published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2021 in PubMed, Scopus, ERIC, Google Scholar, PsycINFO, ASSIA, HMIC, DARE and Web of Science databases was carried out. The included articles were concurrently thematically and content analysed using SEBA's Split Approach. Similarities in the identified themes and categories were combined in the Jigsaw Perspective and compared with the tabulated summaries of included articles in the Funnelling Process to create the domains that will guide discussions.

RESULTS

The research team retrieved 5512 abstracts, reviewed 304 full-text articles and included 101 articles. The domains identified were characteristics, indications, frameworks, domains, enablers and barriers and unique features of remediation in licenced physicians in training programs.

CONCLUSION

Building upon our findings and guided by Hauer et al. approach to remediation and Taylor and Hamdy's Multi-theories Model, we proffer a theoretically grounded 7-stage evidence-based remediation framework to enhance understanding of remediation in licenced physicians in training programs. We believe this framework can guide program design and reframe remediation's role as an integral part of training programs and a source of support and professional, academic, research, interprofessional and personal development.

Mental Health Conditions Among Struggling GME Learners: Results From a Single Center Remediation Program

BACKGROUND

Graduate medical education (GME) learners may struggle with clinical performance during training. A subset of these trainees has mental health conditions (MHCs).

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the MHCs that underlie poor trainee performance and their relationship to specific clinical performance deficit (CPD).

METHODS

At the University of Virginia (UVA), GME learners not meeting appropriate milestones, or who request help, have the option to self-refer or be referred to COACH (Committee on Achieving Competence Through Help). A physician remediation expert assesses the learner and identifies a primary CPD. If there is concern for an MHC, referral is made to a psychologist with expertise in working with trainees. All learners are offered remediation for the CPD. Using descriptive statistics, we tracked the prevalence of MHC and their correlation with specific CPDs.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2019, COACH assessed 7% (61 of 820) of GME learners at UVA. Thirty-eight percent (23 of 61) had an MHC associated with the CPD. Anxiety was the most common MHC (48%), followed by depression (17%), cognitive dysfunction (17%), adjustment disorder (13%), and other (4%). Professionalism was the most identified CPD among learners with MHCs (52%). Of remediated learners, 47% have successfully finished remediation, 21% were terminated or voluntarily left their program, and 32% are still being remediated (83% of whom are in good standing).

CONCLUSIONS

MHCs were identified in nearly 40% of struggling learners referred to a centralized remediation program. Professionalism is the most identified CPD among learners with MHCs.

An Emergency Medicine Remediation Consult Service: Access to Expert Remediation Advice and Resources

Resident remediation is a complex and common issue in emergency medicine programs and requires a specific knowledge base. The Remediation Task Force (RTF) of the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine (CORD-EM) was created to identify remediation best practices and to develop tools for program directors. Initially housed on a Wiki page, and now located within the CORD-EM website, the RTF provides resources including accepted universal language for documentation and sample remediation plans. The RTF also created a remediation consult service composed of experienced educators to provide real-time structured feedback and advice to submitted remediation scenarios with consultation outcomes and conclusions uploaded to the website. CORD-EM members now have easy access to online resources and expert advice for remediation queries through the consult service. The combination of online resources and access to real-time expert advice is an innovative approach to improving resident remediation and recognizing best practices.

Simulation-based Remediation in Emergency Medicine Residency Training: A Consensus Study

INTRODUCTION

Resident remediation is a pressing topic in emergency medicine (EM) training programs. Simulation has become a prominent educational tool in EM training and been recommended for identification of learning gaps and resident remediation. Despite the ubiquitous need for formalized remediation, there is a dearth of literature regarding best practices for simulation-based remediation (SBR).

METHODS

We conducted a literature search on SBR practices using the terms "simulation," "remediation," and "simulation based remediation." We identified relevant themes and used them to develop an open-ended questionnaire that was distributed to EM programs with experience in SBR. Thematic analysis was performed on all subsequent responses and used to develop survey instruments, which were then used in a modified two-round Delphi panel to derive a set of consensus statements on the use of SBR from an aggregate of 41 experts in simulation and remediation in EM.

RESULTS

Faculty representing 30 programs across North America composed the consensus group with 66% of participants identifying themselves as simulation faculty, 32% as program directors, and 2% as core faculty. The results from our study highlight a strong agreement across many areas of SBR in EM training. SBR is appropriate for a range of deficits, including procedural, medical knowledge application, clinical reasoning/decision-making, communication, teamwork, and crisis resource management. Simulation can be used both diagnostically and therapeutically in remediation, although SBR should be part of a larger remediation plan constructed by the residency leadership team or a faculty expert in remediation, and not the only component. Although summative assessment can have a role in SBR, it needs to be very clearly delineated and transparent to everyone involved.

CONCLUSION

Simulation may be used for remediation purposes for certain specific kinds of competencies as long as it is carried out in a transparent manner to all those involved.

Behavioral Health Training in Pediatric Residency Programs: A National Survey of Training Directors

OBJECTIVE

To identify perceptions of behavioral health (BH) training in pediatric residency programs, the degree of involvement from behavioral health providers (BHPs), and opportunities for and barriers to innovation in training.

METHOD

A tailored design methodology was used to target all pediatric residency program directors in the United States (N = 214). Participants were identified from the Electronic Residency Application Service website of the Association of American Medical Colleges and were asked to complete a 22-item item survey on BH training.

RESULTS

A 69.2% usable response rate (N = 148) was obtained. A total of 62.8% of directors described training in the developmental-behavioral pediatrics (DBP) rotation as optimal; 36% described BH training in the residency program as a whole (i.e., outside the DBP rotation) as optimal. Only 20.3% described "common factors" training as optimal, and the quality of training in this area was positively and significantly related to the quality of BH training in the residency program as a whole (χ = 35.05, p < 0.001). The quality of common factors training was significantly higher in programs that had embedded BHPs (i.e., psychologists and social workers) in the continuity clinic than programs that did not (χ = 7.65, p = 0.04). Barriers to quality training included instructional content, instructional methods, stakeholder support, and resources.

CONCLUSION

Despite substantial improvement in residency training in BH over the last decade, additional improvement is needed. Barriers to continued improvement include training content, training methods, support from faculty and administrator stakeholders, and resource issues. Strategies derived from implementation science have the potential to address these barriers.

Early predictors of need for remediation in the Australian general practice training program: a retrospective cohort study

Underperforming trainees requiring remediation may threaten patient safety and are challenging for vocational training programs. Decisions to institute remediation are high-stakes-remediation being resource-intensive and emotionally demanding on trainees. Detection of underperformance requiring remediation is particularly problematic in general (family) practice. We sought to establish early-training assessment instruments predictive of general practice (GP) trainees' subsequently requiring formal remediation. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of trainees from a large Australian regionally-based GP training organization. The outcome factor was requirement for formal remediation. Independent variables were demographic factors and a range of formative assessments conducted immediately prior to or during early-stage training. Analyses employed univariate and multivariate logistic regression of each predictor assessment modality with the outcome, adjusting for potential confounders. Of 248 trainees, 26 (10.5 %) required formal remediation. Performance on the Colleague Feedback Evaluation Tool (entailing feedback from a trainee's clinical colleagues on clinical performance, communication and probity) and External Clinical Teaching Visits (half-day sessions of the trainee's clinical consultations observed directly by an experienced GP), along with non-Australian primary medical qualification, were significantly associated with requiring remediation. There was a non-significant trend for association with performance on the Doctors Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire (patient feedback on interpersonal elements of the consultation). There were no significant associations with entry-selection scores or formative exam or assessment scores. Our finding that 'in vivo' assessments of complex behaviour, but not 'in vitro' knowledge-based assessments, predict need for remediation is consistent with theoretical understanding of the nature of remediation decision-making and should inform remediation practice in GP vocational training.

Defining Uniform Processes for Remediation, Probation and Termination in Residency Training

It is important that residency programs identify trainees who progress appropriately, as well as identify residents who fail to achieve educational milestones as expected so they may be remediated. The process of remediation varies greatly across training programs, due in part to the lack of standardized definitions for good standing, remediation, probation, and termination. The purpose of this educational advancement is to propose a clear remediation framework including definitions, management processes, documentation expectations and appropriate notifications. Informal remediation is initiated when a resident's performance is deficient in one or more of the outcomes-based milestones established by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but not significant enough to trigger formal remediation. Formal remediation occurs when deficiencies are significant enough to warrant formal documentation because informal remediation failed or because issues are substantial. The process includes documentation in the resident's file and notification of the graduate medical education office; however, the documentation is not disclosed if the resident successfully remediates. Probation is initiated when a resident is unsuccessful in meeting the terms of formal remediation or if initial problems are significant enough to warrant immediate probation. The process is similar to formal remediation but also includes documentation extending to the final verification of training and employment letters. Termination involves other stakeholders and occurs when a resident is unsuccessful in meeting the terms of probation or if initial problems are significant enough to warrant immediate termination.

What is the Prevalence and Success of Remediation of Emergency Medicine Residents?

INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of remediation, competency domains for remediation, the length, and success rates of remediation in emergency medicine (EM).

METHODS

We developed the survey in Surveymonkey™ with attention to content and response process validity. EM program directors responded how many residents had been placed on remediation in the last three years. Details regarding the remediation were collected including indication, length and success. We reported descriptive data and estimated a multinomial logistic regression model.

RESULTS

We obtained 126/158 responses (79.7%). Ninety percent of programs had at least one resident on remediation in the last three years. The prevalence of remediation was 4.4%. Indications for remediation ranged from difficulties with one core competency to all six competencies (mean 1.9). The most common were medical knowledge (MK) (63.1% of residents), patient care (46.6%) and professionalism (31.5%). Mean length of remediation was eight months (range 1-36 months). Successful remediation was 59.9% of remediated residents; 31.3% reported ongoing remediation. In 8.7%, remediation was deemed "unsuccessful." Training year at time of identification for remediation (post-graduate year [PGY] 1), longer time spent in remediation, and concerns with practice-based learning (PBLI) and professionalism were found to have statistically significant association with unsuccessful remediation.

CONCLUSION

Remediation in EM residencies is common, with the most common areas being MK and patient care. The majority of residents are successfully remediated. PGY level, length of time spent in remediation, and the remediation of the competencies of PBLI and professionalism were associated with unsuccessful remediation.

The relationship between internal medicine residency graduate performance on the ABIM certifying examination, yearly in-service training examinations, and the USMLE Step 1 examination

PURPOSE

To explore the relationship between United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores, yearly in-service training exam (ITE) scores, and passing the American Board of Internal Medicine certifying examination (ABIM-CE).

METHOD

The authors conducted a retrospective database review of internal medicine residents from the Medical College of Wisconsin from 2004 through 2012. Residents' USMLE Step 1, ITE, and ABIM-CE scores were extracted. Pearson rho, chi-square, and logistic regression were used to determine whether relationships existed between the scores and if Step 1 and ITE scores correlate with passing the ABIM-CE.

RESULTS

There were 241 residents, who participated in 728 annual ITEs. There were Step 1 scores for 195 (81%) residents and ABIM-CE scores for 183 (76%). Step 1 and ABIM-CE scores had a modest correlation (rho: 0.59), as did ITE and ABIM-CE scores (rho: 0.48-0.67). Failing Step 1 or being in the bottom ITE quartile during any year of testing markedly increased likelihood of failing the boards (Step 1: relative risk [RR]: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.0-5.9; first-year residents' RR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0-1.6; second-year residents' RR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1-1.5; third-year residents' RR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1-1.5).

CONCLUSIONS

USMLE Step 1 and ITE scores have a modest correlation with board scores. Failing Step 1 or scoring in the bottom quartile of the ITE increased the risk of failing the boards. What effective intervention, if any, program directors may use with at-risk residents is a question deserving further research.

What does remediation and probation status mean? A survey of emergency medicine residency program directors

OBJECTIVES

Emergency medicine (EM) residency program directors (PDs) nationwide place residents on remediation and probation. However, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the EM PDs have not defined these terms, and individual institutions must set guidelines defining a change in resident status from good standing to remediation or probation. The primary objective of this study was to determine if EM PDs follow a common process to guide actions when residents are placed on remediation and probation.

METHODS

An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to EM PDs via e-mail using SurveyMonkey to determine the current practice followed after residents are placed on remediation or probation. The survey queried four designations: informal remediation, formal remediation, informal probation, and formal probation. These designations were compared for deficits in the domains of medical knowledge (MK) and non-MK remediation. The survey asked what process for designation exists and what actions are triggered, specifically if documentation is placed in a resident's file, if the graduate medical education (GME) office is notified, if faculty are informed, or if resident privileges are limited. Descriptive data are reported.

RESULTS

Eighty-one of 160 PDs responded. An official policy on remediation and/or probation was reported by 41 (50.6%) programs. The status of informal remediation is used by 73 (90.1%), 80 (98.8%) have formal remediation, 40 (49.4%) have informal probation, and 79 (97.5%) have formal probation. There was great variation among PDs in the management and definition of remediation and probation. Between 81 and 86% of programs place an official letter into the resident's file regarding formal remediation and probation. However, only about 50% notify the GME office when a resident is placed on formal remediation. There were no statistical differences between MK and non-MK remediation practices.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variation among EM programs regarding the process of remediation and probation. The definition of these terms and the actions triggered are variable across programs. Based on these findings, suggestions toward a standardized approach for remediation and probation in GME programs are provided.