Emotional Intelligence and the ACGME Competencies

BACKGROUND

Residency programs desire assessment tools for teaching and measuring resident attainment of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies, including interpersonal and communication skills.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the use of emotional intelligence (EI) assessment and training tools in assessing and enhancing interpersonal and communication skills.

METHODS

We used a quasi-experimental design, with an intervention and control group composed of 1 class each of family medicine residents. The intervention was EI coaching. The assessment used the Emotional and Social Competence Inventory, a 360-degree EI survey consisting of self and other (colleague) ratings for 12 EI competencies.

RESULTS

There were 21 participants in each of the 3 assessments (test, posttest, and control). Our EI coaching intervention had very limited participation due to a lack of protected time for EI coaching and residents' competing obligations. Return rates for self surveys were 86% to 91% and 66% to 68% for others. On all 3 trials, ratings by others were significantly higher than self ratings for every competence (range, P < .001-.045). None of the self ratings by the intervention group increased significantly for any of the competencies. None of the intervention group self ratings increased significantly on posttesting, whereas ratings by others increased significantly for coach/mentor (P < .001). The teamwork rating decreased significantly on both self and other ratings (P < .001). Achievement orientation was the highest intervention group posttest rating, and teamwork was the lowest.

CONCLUSIONS

EI is a necessary skill in today's health care environment, and our study found that a tool from another sector was useful in assessing resident EI skills. Because our EI coaching intervention was unsuccessful, the effects of coaching on interpersonal and communication skills could not be assessed.

Research funding and mentoring in family medicine residencies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study's purpose was to measure the current status of research funding and mentoring in family medicine residencies and to ascertain what resources are needed to increase residencies' research output.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey of family medicine residency program directors in the United States. We measured grant funding sources, availability of mentors, the likelihood programs could qualify for National Institutes of Health (NIH) K awards, barriers to research, and how these factors varied by program type.

RESULTS

The response rate was 66% (298/453). Medical school-based programs were much more likely to report that their family medicine faculty wrote funded research grants than were community-based medical school affiliated programs (76% versus 32%). The majority of both program types reported that research mentors were available (85% versus 60%). Very few programs of either type were likely to meet the minimum requirements for NIH K01, K08, or K23 awards (29% for medical school programs versus 3% for community programs). The most commonly reported specific resources needed to increase research output were time, money, and more faculty (range 86% to 92% between program types).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of family medicine residencies did not receive grant funding for research, reported that time and money were the most significant barriers to research, but were ineligible to receive support from NIH K awards. More realistic funding mechanisms are needed to support residency-based research faculty.

Research participation, protected time, and research output by family physicians in family medicine residencies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The Future of Family Medicine project concluded that research must become a greater part of the culture of the specialty. We examined the participation of family physician residency faculty in research, their protected time, and their research output and how these varied by program type.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey of all family medicine residency programs in the United States. The response rate was 66% (298/453).

RESULTS

The majority of programs reported at least one family physician who participates in research, though the medical school-based (MSB) programs reported a higher total number of faculty than the community-based, medical school affiliated (MSA) programs (9.53 versus 2.72) and percentage of faculty (56% versus 37%). Substantially more MSB programs reported that they had at least one family physician with significant protected time for research (48% versus 7% for > 25% protected time) or any protected time (69% for MSB versus 45% for MSA). MSB programs and MSA programs reported similar success at producing at least one poster or paper for national meetings within the last 3 years (63% versus 41%) but not for published papers (86% versus 43%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that only about half of the family medicine residencies produced any nationally recognized research over a 3-year period and that this represents only a small improvement over the last 10 years. Our findings suggest that more support is needed if research is to become an integral part of the culture of family medicine.

Brief clinical report: the dup(17p) syndrome

In a 42-month-old girl a duplicated 17p chromosome anomaly was identified by trypsin-Giemsa banding techniques. The clinical findings are compared with those of previous case reports. Common phenotypics changes include failure to thrive; hypoplastic, apparently low-set ears; micrognathia; flexion abnormalities of fingers; and foot abnormalities.