Feedback perceptions of first year medical residents: An intervention-based survey study

BACKGROUND

Feedback in residency is a necessity for progression toward clinical competency and is included in The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones as an essential component for accreditation.

PURPOSE

Our study elucidates perceptions of feedback of first-year residents and aims to identify how these perceptions change after education on building expertise through deliberate practice.

METHODS

First-year internal medicine and neurology residents of a mid-sized university-affiliated residency program answered a five-question 5-point unipolar response scale questionnaire regarding feedback perceptions before and after attending a workshop about building expertise through effective feedback during residency orientation. Related-Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was applied for comparing pre- versus post-questionnaire data.

RESULTS

Of 31 first-year residents, 29 completed the pre-questionnaire for a completion rate of 93.5%, while 24 of 31 completed the post-questionnaire for a completion rate of 77.4%. Of the five questions, three improved when comparing pre and post responses to, including the questions on confidence in the ability to procure feedback (p = <0.001), the effort put into procuring feedback (p = 0.001), and frequency of seeking feedback (p = 0.002). Interest in receiving feedback and the importance of feedback remained unchanged after workshop attendance.

CONCLUSION

Residents should be educated on building expertise through deliberate practice and how to obtain high-quality feedback, given the emphasis and essentiality of feedback within the milestone assessment system and the core competencies of ACGME. In our study, education on these topics led to significant improvement in resident perceptions of confidence in the ability to procure feedback, effort put into procuring feedback, and frequency at which feedback would be sought.

Confidence and Utilization are Poorly Associated with Point-of-Care Ultrasound Competency among Internal Medicine Trainees

INTRODUCTION

Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) is the utilization of bedside ultrasound by clinicians. Its portable and rapid diagnostic capabilities make it an excellent tool for deployment and mobile military settings. However, formal and uniform POCUS training is lacking. Furthermore, the evaluation of these curricula often relies on confidence assessment. Our objective was to assess the relationships between confidence, frequency of utilization, and image interpretation knowledge among our Internal Medicine residents before and after the implementation of a formal curriculum.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In November 2020, we implemented a longitudinal, flipped-classroom, academic half-day curriculum, conducting a prospective before-after cohort evaluation of its implementation. The POCUS curriculum was implemented as a longitudinal, asynchronous, flipped-classroom activity with workshop sessions during one academic half-day per month. We measured confidence via a Likert scale and utilization frequency via a five-point scale. Six multiple-choice questions (MCQ) with ultrasound videos assessed image interpretation competency. The image interpretation score was reported as percent correct. We related confidence and utilization to the image interpretation score.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine residents were eligible for participation. Fifty-four (55%) completed a pre-curriculum assessment and 45 (45%) completed a post-curriculum assessment. Average image interpretation scores were 41% pre-curriculum and 51% post-curriculum (P =0.02). Pre-curriculum residents were on average unconfident (mean=2.56), and post-curriculum residents were on average confident (mean=3.62). Pre-curriculum residents used POCUS occasionally (mean=2.02, count 13 (24%) never utilizing). Post-curriculum residents used POCUS occasionally (mean=2.42, count 4 (9%) never utilizing). Pre- and post-curriculum confidence were not significantly associated with image interpretation scores (pre-curriculum: r=-0.10, P =0.50; post-curriculum: r=0.24, P =0.11). Pre- and post-curriculum utilization were not significantly associated with image interpretation scores (pre-curriculum: r=0.15, P =0.28; post-curriculum: r=0.02, P =0.90). The number of curriculum sessions attended was significantly associated with higher image interpretation scores (r=0.30, P =0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that POCUS confidence and informal utilization do not correlate with image interpretation knowledge on MCQs among Internal Medicine residents. These findings support assessing direct measures of knowledge, rather than confidence, as an endpoint in evaluating POCUS curricula among Internal Medicine residents.

Impact of an Education Intervention on COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in a Military Base Population

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is a major impediment to achieving herd immunity and overcoming the current pandemic. Our aim was to decrease the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy through an education intervention.

METHOD

An education intervention, consisting of a PowerPoint presentation addressing the two mRNA COVID-19 vaccine concerns/myths and a question and answer panel comprising health care providers from various specialties, was implemented to address vaccine hesitancy among personnel associated with Wright-Patterson Air Force Base through a series of virtual and in-person seminars. Participants completed a post-seminar survey as a retrospective self-assessment to identify attitudes and views surrounding vaccine hesitancy and the impact of the education intervention. Chi-squared test was used to examine relationships between categorical variables, and multiple logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for vaccine hesitancy pre- and post-seminar. All analyses were done using SPSS Statistics Version 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY). Institutional Review Board approval was not obtained before this study as it began as a non-research initiative and received non-research determination post hoc.

RESULTS

Five hundred participants completed the survey. Mean age was 44.7 years with 13.4 and 86.6% medical and non-medical personnel, respectively. Nearly all (98.8%) had not received their first shot of the vaccine series. 402 (80.9%) were receptive to vaccination, and 95 (19.1%) were hesitant post-seminar. Of the 139 participants who reported they were initially hesitant after our intervention, 50 (36%) indicated that they were now receptive to the vaccine, while 89 (64%) remained hesitant. Of those 50, 48 (96%) had moderate to great amount of trust in COVID-19 vaccine information presented by physicians/other providers. Six respondents who wanted the vaccine before the intervention no longer wanted the vaccine. A medical occupation (OR = 4.85, 95% CI = 2.63-8.96, P < .001), little or no trust in COVID-19 vaccine information from physicians/other providers (OR = 19.48, 95% CI = 7.31-51.90, P < 0.001), and being age 30 or younger (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.02-3.2, P = 0.041) were independent predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Trust in providers was a significant factor in change of intent from vaccine hesitant to receptive post-intervention (OR 0.13, 95% CI = 0.03-0.59, P = .008). Age and occupation were not significant factors associated with change in intent.

CONCLUSION

Our education intervention was effective in reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a military base population. Study limitations include applications toward other military and non-military populations, the possibility of nonresponse bias, and absence of prior validated interventions. Area for future studies includes improvement upon educational intervention, development of other effective methods, and application of intervention in other populations.

Addressing Persistent Vaccine Hesitancy in a Military Community Through a Physician-Led Intervention

Introduction

Following the identification of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China, the virus has spread rapidly around the world causing severe illness and death. Several vaccines were found to be safe and effective and made available first to those most at risk and then to the general public. Despite the safety and efficacy profiles, vaccine hesitancy remains a significant barrier to widespread immunity. Within the military community at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, we provided multiple physician-led educational seminars to address vaccination concerns and decrease vaccine hesitancy.

Materials and Methods

The authors presented a PowerPoint presentation of the available vaccinations, their safety data, and efficacy, followed by a town hall-style question-and-answer period where questions were presented from the previous submission, as well as real-time submissions through Facebook Live. The questions were fielded by specialists in Internal Medicine, Infectious Disease, Pulmonary-Critical Care, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Rheumatology. The entire presentation was streamed through Facebook Live and was freely available. Following the presentation, an online survey was provided for willing participants to complete which included demographic data and addressed their previous and current attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccinations and their opinions on the presentation. Data from the survey were then analyzed through IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 to find any associations or risk factors for hesitancy.

Results

There were 73 respondents to the assessment, most of which were nonmedical. Of the 73, the majority (45) had already received a vaccine for COVID-19. Of those unvaccinated, 17 did not want a vaccination before or after the seminar. Two did change their mind about being receptive to vaccination, and one changed from receptive to hesitant. The only statistically significant risk factors for vaccine hesitancy were those with a moderate to great amount of trust in their health care provider compared to those with little to no trust (73% vs. 4%, P < .001).

Conclusions

Our intervention was limited in its effectiveness to address vaccine hesitancy late in the pandemic, with our study limited by our small sample size. Regardless, it identified a peculiar discrepancy with those with the most trust in health care providers being the most likely to be vaccine-hesitant. This highlights the importance of the information that trusted health care providers are providing to their patients and may identify more effective routes to address vaccine hesitancy in the future.

Increasing exercise adherence among elderly patients with chronic disease in primary care: a prospective cohort study

Background

Currently, the evidence for exercise in maintaining health, well-being, and physical functioning is overwhelming. Despite these benefits, more than 50% of the population fails to meet the recommended exercise requirements for age and health status. In our study, we sought to provide a method to increase exercise adherence that was both effective and time-efficient for physicians and their patients.

Methods

The primary objective of this research study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a graded exercise protocol and biweekly monitoring on increasing the duration of aerobic exercise to 150 min per week in a population of elderly individuals with chronic disease. Secondarily, we evaluated for improvement in resting heart rate, blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), and cardiorespiratory fitness. The overall study design was a randomized, prospective cohort study with assessor blinding. Forty-five patients aged ≥60 years with multiple comorbidities were recruited from the Internal Medicine Clinic at Wright-Patterson AFB. Participants were randomized into a treatment or control arm and observed over a period of 34 weeks. Those in the treatment arm were given a graded walking protocol and received biweekly phone calls to evaluate compliance. Those in the control arm did not receive an intervention or biweekly monitoring. Measurements of heart rate, blood pressure, and BMI were taken quarterly in both groups. At the beginning and conclusion of the study, each participant completed a modified Balke treadmill test and Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE). Continuous variables were evaluated with the independent samples t-test, whereas categorical variables were evaluated with the chi-squared test.

Results

A greater percentage of the treatment group achieved the primary outcome (41.6% vs. 0%; p = 0.003). Those in the treatment group also had favorable improvements in heart rate response (− 2.4 beats/min vs. + 5.3 beats/min; p = 0.038) and PASE (+ 66 vs.-20; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between groups for mean change in heart rate, blood pressure, or BMI.

Conclusion

Guided, independent exercise and surveillance can be an effective tool in primary care practice to help patients reach the recommended levels of exercise for both age and health status.

Battlefield acupuncture appears to be an effective therapy for pain management

INTRODUCTION

The Department of Defense has been training primary care providers in battlefield acupuncture (BFA), a subtype of auricular acupuncture, as an adjunct therapy for pain management.

METHODS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of BFA for pain management in an outpatient Internal Medicine clinic staffed by resident physicians. The target population for this single-center prospective cohort study were military beneficiaries at a medical treatment facility located at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Participants who met inclusion criteria were treated with BFA in addition to routine standard care for pain (n = 69). The control group was composed of participants who received routine standard care only without BFA (n = 27). Pain was assessed by a self-reported pain scale (0-10) at the time of encounter, immediately after BFA (for the intervention group), then at 24 and 48 h afterwards.

RESULTS

Mean pain for the intervention group decreased from 5.45 before BFA to 3.29 immediately following BFA to 2.21 at 24 h and to 2.10 at 48 h (p < 0.001). Thus, at all three post-treatment time points, mean decrease in pain surpassed a two-point reduction, deemed to be a clinically important difference. The BFA group had a greater reduction in pain compared to the no intervention group at 24 h (3.14 vs 0.59, p < 0.001) and at 48 h (3.26 vs 0.96, p < 0.001). Four intervention group participants (6%) reported an adverse reaction (three with pain at the insertion site) or complication (one with superficial infection).

CONCLUSION

BFA provided by Internal Medicine residents appears to be a safe and effective adjunct therapy for pain management in an outpatient setting, but requires further validation by randomized controlled trials.

Perceptions and Concerns Regarding COVID-19 Vaccination in a Military Base Population

Introduction

Safe and effective vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2 are essential tools in the fight against the coronavirus disease 2019  (COVID-19) pandemic. However, hesitancy to vaccination is a major barrier to achieving herd immunity, particularly among a population working on a military base. To better understand the perceptions and concerns of these individuals, a voluntary survey was conducted.

Materials and Methods

An interactive, online survey was constructed and disseminated to individuals associated with Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) in Dayton, OH. Survey participation was voluntary with responses collected over the initial weeks in which WPAFB began to distribute COVID-19 vaccines in a series of phases. Although initially designed to collect demographic data and identify reasons for potential vaccine hesitancy among WPAFB 88th Medical Group personnel, the study population was expanded to include all WPAFB-affiliated personnel at the direction of base leadership. The chi-squared test was used to examine the relationships between categorical variables, while multivariable logistic regression was used to assess age and occupation as independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy.

Results

A total of 816 individuals completed the survey, of whom 22.7% (n = 185) self-identified as vaccine hesitant (VH). The VH group had a lower mean age than the not vaccine hesitant (NVH) group (39.3 ± 14.2 vs. 45.9 ± 13.4, P < .001). Respondents whose occupation was medical were more likely to be VH than their non-medical colleagues (49% vs. 18%, P < .001). The VH group was more concerned about short-term side effects (43% vs. 26%, P < .001), long-term side effects (82% vs. 50%, P < 0.001), vaccine effectiveness (23% vs. 5%, P < .001), vaccine making them feel sick (22% vs. 13%, P = .002), being infected with COVID-19 from the vaccine (10% vs. 5%, P = 0.008), and worry about misinformation/political agenda (43% vs. 31%, P = 0.003). Younger respondents and medical personnel were more likely to be concerned about long-term side effects and vaccine effectiveness, and the younger group was also more likely to be concerned about pregnancy/breastfeeding issues and worry about misinformation/political agenda. Age (younger vs. older, odds ratio 2.15) and occupation (medical vs. non-medical, odds ratio 3.74) were independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy. The NVH group was more likely to recommend the COVID-19 vaccine to a friend or family member than the VH group (93% vs. 20%, P < .001) as were the older age group (79% vs. 67%, P = .001) and non-medical personnel (81% vs. 52%, P < .001).

Conclusions

Younger age and medical occupation were independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy and these individuals were less likely to recommend vaccination to a friend or family member. We also identified several key concerns related to vaccination hesitancy, in particular those related to short- and long-term side effects, and the spread of misinformation. Among military personnel, these findings carry important implications that may negatively impact mission readiness, a matter that merits further investigation. Our COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy findings can be used to guide targeted interventions at future vaccination campaigns in a military population.

Bamlanivimab Use in a Military Treatment Facility

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first identified in 2019 in Wuhan, China, and has rapidly spread across the world. As of April 2021, SARS-CoV-2 has infected more than 140,000,000 and caused more than 3,000,000 deaths globally. In November 2020, the monoclonal antibody bamlanivimab was approved by the FDA for non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) who possessed risk factors for progression to severe COVID-19. This provided a treatment option that may help prevent hospitalization.

METHODS

Patients who regularly received ambulatory care at a military treatment facility and who were diagnosed with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and possessed risk factors for progression to severe COVID-19 were treated with a single, intravenous infusion (700 mg) of the virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody bamlanivimab. The primary outcome was improvement of self-reported symptoms within 24 to 72 hours of receiving the infusion. The secondary outcome was prevention of disease progression requiring emergency department (ED) utilization or hospitalization related to COVID-19 within 30 days of infusion. Bamlanivimab was administered in accordance with the FDA's approval and Defense Health Agency's guidance, including follow-up within 72 hours of administration. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained.

RESULTS

Of the COVID-19 patients who were given the option of a bamlanivimab infusion, 40 accepted and 6 did not (40/46, 86.9%). Thirty-six of 40 patients in the treatment group were contacted within 72 hours. ED/hospitalization information was available for all 46 patients. In the treatment group, 94.4% (34/36) reported global improvement. Three of 40 (7.5%) patients in the treatment group required inpatient admission, and 2 of 40 patients (5%) required ED evaluation within 30 days of infusion. Therefore, 5 of 40 (12.5%) patients required evaluation shortly after infusion, while 2 of 6 (33.3%) patients who declined treatment required hospital evaluation or admission related to COVID-19 within 30 days of infusion (P = .15).

CONCLUSIONS

Global improvement of symptoms within 24 to 72 hours of infusion was reported by 94.4% of patients receiving bamlanivimab; however, statistical significance could not be determined due to the small sample size and lack of placebo group due to study design. Furthermore, ED visits and hospital admissions were analyzed, but with only six patients in the comparison group, the relative risk was not statistically significant and could not be precisely estimated. In the future, this study can be replicated with both larger control/treatment arms to validate the initial results of this small, retrospective, cohort study.