Proposed guidelines for housestaff interaction with pharmaceutical companies

The relationship between the medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies is complex, since industry depends on physicians for research and development, and for sales of its products. As a result, physician interactions with industry could undermine the patient-centered medical ethic, and jeopardize the physician-patient relationship. There is evidence that physicians are influenced by their encounters with the pharmaceutical industry. Particularly troubling is the increasing interaction of pharmaceutical companies and housestaff through detailing and educational support. Several studies have documented the pervasiveness of such relationships in training programs. Although professional bodies have developed criteria to help physicians in their dealings with the pharmaceutical industry, no principles have yet been formulated to address the unique aspects of resident contact with pharmaceutical companies. Guidelines designed to answer this need are proposed in this article.     

Developing an internet-based communication system for residency training programs

Administrative communication is increasingly challenging for residency programs as the number of training sites expands. The Internet provides a cost-effective opportunity to address these needs. Using the World Wide Web, we developed a single, reliable, accurate, and accessible source of administrative information for residents, faculty, and staff in a multisite internal medicine residency at reduced costs. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the website was determined by tracking website use, materials and personnel costs, and resident, staff, and faculty satisfaction. Office supply and personnel costs were reduced by 89% and personnel effort by 85%. All users were highly satisfied with the web communication tool and all reported increased knowledge of program information and a greater sense of "connectedness." We conclude that an internet-based communication system that provides a single, reliable, accurate, and accessible source of information for residents, faculty, and staff can be developed with minimum resources and reduced costs.     

Geriatric training in emergency medicine residency programs.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The health care needs of the elderly population are significantly different from those of younger patients and require special knowledge and skills on the part of emergency physicians. The purpose of this study was to identify the nature and extent of geriatric training currently provided to emergency medicine residents. DESIGN: Self-administered survey distributed to residency directors of the 85 accredited emergency medicine residency programs in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: The survey consisted of 17 questions focusing on residency directors' views about teaching and research of geriatric emergency care. RESULTS: Survey information was obtained from 85 (100%) emergency medicine residency programs. Forty percent (34 of 85) of respondents believed the teaching of geriatric emergency care was inadequate; 44 programs (52%) plan to increase the number of didactic hours devoted to geriatrics (mean increase of 5.9 hours). The five geriatric topics most frequently taught included acute dementia, atypical presentation of illness, common complaints in the elderly, geriatric trauma, and ethical issues. Sixty-five percent believed ongoing national research efforts regarding geriatric emergency medicine were insufficient; 21 programs (25%) had faculty involved in geriatric studies. Most respondents reported that growing numbers of elderly will have a major impact on all areas of patient care in the near future. CONCLUSION: Although geriatric emergency care is becoming an integral part of the emergency medicine residency program, there may be a need for better focused and more intensive training.     

Evidence-based medicine training in internal medicine residency programs

To characterize evidence-based medicine (EBM) curricula in internal medicine residency programs, a written survey was mailed to 417 program directors of U.S. internal medicine residency programs. For programs offering a freestanding (dedicated curricular time) EBM curriculum, the survey inquired about its objectives, format, curricular time, attendance, faculty development, resources, and evaluation. All directors responded to questions regarding integrating EBM teaching into established educational venues. Of 417 program directors, 269 (65%) responded. Of these 269 programs, 99 (37%) offered a freestanding EBM curriculum. Among these, the most common objectives were performing critical appraisal (78%), searching for evidence (53%), posing a focused question (44%), and applying the evidence in decision making (35%). Although 97% of the programs provided medline, only 33% provided Best Evidence or the Cochrane Library. Evaluation was performed in 37% of the freestanding curricula. Considering all respondents, most programs reported efforts to integrate EBM teaching into established venues, including attending rounds (84%), resident report (82%), continuity clinic (76%), bedside rounds (68%), and emergency department (35%). However, only 51% to 64% of the programs provided on-site electronic information and 31% to 45% provided site-specific faculty development. One third of the training programs reported offering freestanding EBM curricula, which commonly targeted important EBM skills, utilized the residents’ experiences, and employed an interactive format. Less than one half of the curricula however, included curriculum evaluation, and many failed to provide important medical information sources. Most programs reported efforts to integrate EBM teaching, but many of these attempts lacked important structural elements.     

Survey of medicine/pediatrics residency training programs

The American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Pediatrics agreed in 1967 to create combined medicine/pediatrics residency training programs. These programs span four years and provide 24 months of training in each discipline, leading to Board eligibility in both. Little is known about their curricula because there is no separate residency review committee to critique the current programs. The directors of the 65 current programs were surveyed by mail. Fifty-seven (88%) responded to questions about: lengths of time programs had been in operation, attitudes toward quality of residents, program structures and curricula, and performances of graduates taking the Boards. More than half of the programs were established after 1980. Forty of the programs’ graduates have passed the Medicine Boards, and 48 have passed the Pediatrics written Boards. Most programs were structured to have residents switch specialties every six months. Program Directors, both in Medicine and in Pediatrics, rated the quality of combined program residents the same as or slightly better than that of residents in non-combined programs. Medicine/pediatrics residencies have become a successful and important source of training for generalists’ careers in and outside of academe, and in both primary and specialty care. Received from the Department of Medicine and the Department of Pediatrics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia. Presented in part at the session for Medicine/Pediatrics program directors at the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine in New Orleans, October 26, 1986.     

Rheumatology training at internal medicine and family practice residency programs

The Medical Research Education Subcommittee of the American Rheumatism Association surveyed a random selection of large and small programs in internal medicine and family practice residency programs in order to evaluate their rheumatology training. Formal rheumatology training is offered in 90% of these residency programs, but many available positions are not being filled. A full-time staff rheumatologist was present at 69% of large internal medicine programs, 32% of small internal medicine programs, and 11% of family practice programs. The methods of rheumatology training are similar in most programs, although small internal medicine programs and family practice programs more often utilize physicians' offices or outside medical centers for the rheumatology elective training. A majority of the directors of these residency programs thought that many basic skills and techniques were not taught adequately and that the training of their rheumatology residents was not equal to that of residents in cardiology or gastroenterology.     

Resident research and scholarly activity in internal medicine residency training programs

OBJECTIVES: 1) To describe how internal medicine residency programs fulfill the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) scholarly activity training requirement including the current context of resident scholarly work, and 2) to compare findings between university and nonuniversity programs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey. SETTING: ACGME-accredited internal medicine residency programs. PARTICIPANTS: Internal medicine residency program directors. MEASUREMENTS: Data were collected on 1) interpretation of the scholarly activity requirement, 2) support for resident scholarship, 3) scholarly activities of residents, 4) attitudes toward resident research, and 5) program characteristics. University and nonuniversity programs were compared. MAIN RESULTS: The response rate was 78%. Most residents completed a topic review with presentation (median, 100%) to fulfill the requirement. Residents at nonuniversity programs were more likely to complete case reports (median, 40% vs 25%; P=.04) and present at local or regional meetings (median, 25% vs 20%; P=.01), and were just as likely to conduct hypothesis-driven research (median, 20% vs 20%; P=.75) and present nationally (median, 10% vs 5%; P=.10) as residents at university programs. Nonuniversity programs were more likely to report lack of faculty mentors (61% vs 31%; P<.001) and resident interest (55% vs 40%; P=.01) as major barriers to resident scholarship. Programs support resident scholarship through research curricula (47%), funding (46%), and protected time (32%). CONCLUSIONS: Internal medicine residents complete a variety of projects to fulfill the scholarly activity requirement. Nonuniversity programs are doing as much as university programs in meeting the requirement and supporting resident scholarship despite reporting significant barriers.     

A new model for accreditation of residency programs in internal medicine

A renewed emphasis on clinical competence and its assessment has grown out of public concerns about the safety, efficacy, and accountability of health care in the United States. Medical schools and residency training programs are paying increased attention to teaching and evaluating basic clinical skills, stimulated in part by these concerns and the responding initiatives of accrediting, certifying, and licensing bodies. This paper, from the Residency Review Committee for Internal Medicine of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, proposes a new outcomes-based accreditation strategy for residency training programs in internal medicine. It shifts residency program accreditation from external audit of educational process to continuous assessment and improvement of trainee clinical competence.     

Impact of pharmaceutical company representatives on internal medicine residency programs. A survey of residency program directors.

To survey internal medicine residency program directors regarding interactions between their residents and pharmaceutical company (PC) representatives (PCRs) a questionnaire was sent to the directors of all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-approved internal medicine residency programs. The survey included 444 program directors, of whom 272 (61.16%) responded. The majority of program directors, 228 (83.8%), allowed PCRs to meet with residents during working hours and 241 (88.6%) permitted PC sponsorship of conferences. About half of the program directors were "moderately" or "very" concerned about the potential adverse effects of PC marketing on resident attitudes and prescribing practices. Seventy percent "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that the benefits of PC sponsorship outweigh the adverse effects and 41.5% believed that refusal to allow PCRs to meet with residents would jeopardize PC funding of other departmental activities. Most program directors reported that alternate funds for conferences were available if PC support was withdrawn. "Unethical" marketing activities were observed by 14.3% of program directors and 37.5% reported that residents had participated in PC-sponsored trips during the 3 years prior to the survey. At the time of this survey, only 35.3% of programs had developed formal policies regulating PCR activities and 25.7% provided residents with formal instruction on marketing issues. Knowledge of the current extent of PCR interactions with residents may be helpful to program directors in developing policies regulating PC-marketing activities.     

Improving geriatrics training in internal medicine residency programs: best practices and sustainable solutions

National surveys indicate a need for additional training in geriatrics during internal medicine residencies. This paper describes 1) "best practices" for integrating geriatrics education into internal medicine residency programs, 2) barriers to implementation of these practices, and 3) possible ways to improve geriatrics training for internal medicine residents. These best practices were determined by a systematic review of the literature and through interviews with leaders of 26 residency and geriatrics programs concerned with geriatrics training for residents. The most successful programs have clinical experiences with 3 key elements: model geriatric care in 1 or more settings (for example, in the hospital or in ambulatory practice), patient care across sites or transitions of care, and interdisciplinary teamwork. Barriers include attitudes, few faculty, need for relationships with nontraditional training sites, and lack of funding. Local solutions include engaging the internal medicine program director to accomplish a mutual goal--for example, by creating a model geriatrics training experience in which residents demonstrate their skill in a new Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education competency (such as systems-based practice). National solutions include reaching consensus on the competencies in geriatrics that should be achieved by board-eligible internists. This may mean increasing the number of questions that test geriatrics competency in the certifying and in-training examinations, increasing numbers of faculty members able to teach and model geriatric care, developing "effective medical resident teaching" courses for nonphysician faculty, and lobbying for improved systems of care.     

Interactions between pharmaceutical representatives and doctors in training

OBJECTIVE: Medical school and residency are formative years in establishing patterns of prescribing. We aimed to review the literature regarding the extent of pharmaceutical industry contact with trainees, attitudes about these interactions, and effects on trainee prescribing behavior, with an emphasis on points of potential intervention and policy formation. DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE from 1966 until May 2004 for English language articles. All original articles were included if the abstract reported content relevant to medical training and the pharmaceutical industry. Editorials, guidelines, and policy recommendations were excluded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Contact with pharmaceutical representatives was common among residents. The majority of trainees felt that the interactions were appropriate. A minority felt that their own prescribing could be influenced by contact or gifts, but were more likely to believe that others' prescribing could be influenced. Resident prescribing was associated with pharmaceutical representative visits and the availability of samples. A variety of policy and educational interventions appear to influence resident attitudes toward interactions with industry, although data on the long-term effects of these interventions are limited. Overall, residents reported insufficient training in this area. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmaceutical industry has a significant presence during residency training, has gained the overall acceptance of trainees, and appears to influence prescribing behavior. Training programs can benefit from policies and curricula that teach residents about industry influence and ways in which to critically evaluate information that they are given. Recommendations for local and national approaches are discussed.