scholarly journals Internal Medicine Residency Program Responses to the Increase of Residency Applications: Differences by Program Type and Characteristics

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 698-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle L. Sweet ◽  
Christopher M. Williams ◽  
Emily Stewart ◽  
Saumil M. Chudgar ◽  
Steven V. Angus ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Background Over the past decade, the number of residency applications has increased substantially, causing many residency programs to change their recruitment practices. Objective We determined how internal medicine (IM) residency programs have responded to increased applications by program type (community-based, community-based/university-affiliated, and university-based) and characteristics (percentage of international medical graduates, program size, and program director [PD] tenure). Methods The Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine conducted a national survey of 363 IM PDs in 2017. Five questions assessed IM program responses to the increased number of residency applications in 3 areas: changes in recruitment strategies, impact on ability to perform holistic review, and interest in 5 potential solutions. We performed a subgroup analysis to measure differences by program type and characteristics. Results The response rate was 64% (233 of 363). There were no differences by program type or characteristics for experiencing an increase in the number of applicants, altering recruitment practices, or conducting holistic reviews. There were moderate differences in alterations of recruitment practices by program characteristics and moderate differences in interest in proposed solutions by program type. Community-based programs had the greatest interest in a program-specific statement (59%, P = .032) and the lowest percentage in a national database of matched applicants (44%, P = .034). Conclusions IM residency programs are experiencing an increasing number of applications and are accommodating by adjusting recruitment practices in a variety of ways. A majority of IM PDs supported 4 of the 5 solutions, although the level of interest differed by program type.

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manasa S. Ayyala ◽  
Saima Chaudhry ◽  
Donna Windish ◽  
Denise Dupras ◽  
Shalini T. Reddy ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Background  Bullying of medical trainees is believed to occur more frequently in medical education than once thought. Objective  We conducted a survey to understand internal medicine program director (PD) perspectives and awareness about bullying in their residency programs. Methods  The 2015 Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine (APDIM) annual survey was e-mailed to 368 of 396 PDs with APDIM membership, representing 93% of internal medicine residency programs. Questions about bullying were embedded within the survey. Bivariate analyses were performed on PD and program characteristics. Results  Of a total of 368 PD APDIM members, 227 PDs (62%) responded to the survey. Less than one-third of respondents (71 of 227, 31%) reported being aware of bullying in their residency programs during the previous year. There were no significant differences in program or PD characteristics between respondents who reported bullying in their programs and those who did not (gender, tenure as PD, geographic location, or specialty, all P > .05). Those who acknowledged bullying in their program were more likely to agree it was a problem in graduate medical education (P < .0001), and it had a significant negative impact on the learning environment (P < .0001). The majority of reported events entailed verbal disparagements, directed toward interns and women, and involved attending physicians, other residents, and nurses. Conclusions  This national survey of internal medicine PDs reveals that a minority of PDs acknowledged recent bullying in their training programs, and reportedly saw it as a problem in the learning environment.


Author(s):  
Peter Doehring

AbstractThe present study explored the shift from understanding to intervention to population impact in the empirical research published in this journal at five points of time over 40 years since the release of DSM-III. Two-thirds of the more than 600 original studies identified involved basic research, a pattern that is consistent with previous analyses of research funding allocations and that did not change over time. One of every eight studies involved intervention research, which occurred in community-based programs only about one-quarter of the time. These gaps in intervention research and community impact did not improve over time. The findings underscore the need to broaden the training and experience of researchers, and to re-consider priorities for research funding and publication.


2012 ◽  
Vol 59 (9) ◽  
pp. 1289-1306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth D. Allen ◽  
Phillip L. Hammack ◽  
Heather L. Himes

Author(s):  
Kellie Rhodes ◽  
Aisland Rhodes ◽  
Wayne Bear ◽  
Larry Brendtro

Approximately 1.7 million delinquency cases are disposed in juvenile courts annually (Puzzanchera, Adams, & Sickmund, 2011). Of these youth, tens of thousands experience confinement in the US (Sawyer, 2019), while hundreds of thousands experience probation or are sentenced to community based programs (Harp, Muhlhausen, & Hockenberry, 2019). These youth are placed in the care of programs overseen by directors and clinicians. A survey of facility directors and clinicians from member agencies of the National Partnership for Juvenile Services (NPJS) Behavioral Health Clinical Services (BHCS) committee identified three primary concerns practitioners face in caring for these youth; 1) low resources to recruit and retain quality staff, 2) training that is often not a match for, and does not equip staff to effectively manage the complex needs of acute youth, and 3) the perspective of direct care as an unskilled entry-level position with limited impact on youth’s rehabilitation. This article seeks to address these issues and seeks to highlight potential best practices to re-solve for those obstacles within juvenile services.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document