scholarly journals A Didactic and Experiential Quality Improvement Curriculum for Psychiatry Residents

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 562-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia L. Reardon ◽  
Greg Ogrinc ◽  
Art Walaszek

Abstract Background Quality improvement (QI) education in residency training is important and necessary for accreditation. Although the literature on this topic has been growing, some specialties, in particular psychiatry, have been underrepresented. Methods We developed a didactic and experiential QI curriculum within a US psychiatry residency program that included a seminar series and development of QI projects. Evaluation included resident knowledge using the Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool, implementation of resident QI projects, and qualitative and quantitative satisfaction with the curriculum. Results Our curriculum significantly improved QI knowledge in 2 cohorts of residents (N  =  16) as measured by the Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool. All resident QI projects (100%) in the first cohort were implemented. Residents and faculty reported satisfaction with the curriculum. Conclusions Our curriculum incorporated QI education through didactic and experiential learning in a moderately sized US psychiatry residency program. Important factors included a longitudinal experience with protected time for residents to develop QI projects and a process for developing faculty competence in QI. Further studies should use a control group of residents and examine interprofessional QI curricula.

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 538-541
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Baker ◽  
Kehinde Ogundipe ◽  
Christopher Sterwald ◽  
Erin A. Van Enkevort ◽  
Adam Brenner

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 284-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric W. Glissmeyer ◽  
Sonja I. Ziniel ◽  
James Moses

Abstract Background Assessing the effectiveness of quality improvement curricula is important to improving this area of resident education. Objective To assess the ability of the Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool (QIKAT) to differentiate between residents who were provided instruction in QI and those who were not, when scored by individuals not involved in designing the QIKAT, its scoring rubric, or QI curriculum instruction. Methods The QIKAT and a 9-item self-assessment of QI proficiency were administered to an intervention and a control group. The intervention was a longitudinal curriculum consisting of 8 hours of didactic QI training and 6 workshops providing just-in-time training for resident QI projects. Two uninvolved faculty scored the QIKAT. Results A total of 33 residents in the intervention group and 27 in the control group completed the baseline and postcurriculum QIKAT and self-assessment. QIKAT mean intervention group scores were significantly higher than mean control group scores postcurriculum (P < .001). Absolute QIKAT differences were small (of 15 points, intervention group improved from a mean score of 12.8 to 13.2). Interrater agreement as measured by kappa test was low (0.09). Baseline self-assessment showed no differences, and after instruction, the intervention group felt more proficient in QI knowledge than controls in 4 of 9 domains tested. Conclusions The QIKAT detected a statistically significant improvement postintervention, but the absolute differences were small. Self-reported gain in QI knowledge and proficiency agreed with the results of the QIKAT. However, QIKAT limitations include poor interrater agreement and a scoring rubric that lacks specificity. Programs considering using QIKAT to assess curricula should understand these limitations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document