Trainee Update March 2015

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-38
Author(s):  
Nicholas Smallwood ◽  
◽  
Nerys Conway ◽  

We are trying to build a database of regional Acute Internal Medicine (AIM) trainee reps so we can get a better idea of regional training issues to feedback to the SAC (the national training committee). If any of you could drop us a quick e-mail to the addresses below with the name of your Deanery representative, along with any current issues it would greatly help us on our way!

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-82
Author(s):  
Nicholas Smallwood ◽  
◽  
Nerys Conway ◽  

Objectives: To ascertain current Acute Internal Medicine (AIM) trainees’ opinions on their training programme, practical procedures, specialist skills and AIM as a specialty. This can then be used to feedback to the national training committee to help shape training priorities. Methods: Online survey sent to all AIM Higher Specialty Trainees registered on the Society for Acute Medicine database, and advertised through e-mail communication and social media. Results: The majority of trainees (55.5%) were quite happy or very happy with their training currently, although significant difficulties were highlighted with time off for specialist skill training and difficulty achieving certain procedural skills. The majority of trainees believe ultrasound should form a core component of AIM training (82.3%). A high proportion of trainees would recommend AIM as a specialty despite these difficulties. Conclusions: A number of issues were highlighted causing difficulties within AIM training, despite which the vast majority of trainees would recommend AIM as a career choice. The results were fed back to the training committee in March.


2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 216-216
Author(s):  
Matthew Jones ◽  

It has recently become apparent that a few trainees in Acute Internal Medicine (AIM) have not been made aware of what the final outcome of their training might be. There is a need, therefore, to ensure that there are no surprises for individuals as they approach the end of training.


Author(s):  
Adam Luxenberg ◽  
Leslea Brickner ◽  
Stephan Lee ◽  
Nirmala D. Ramalingam ◽  
H. Nicole Tran

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Donnelly ◽  
Janelle M. Clauser ◽  
Neil J. Weissman

Abstract Introduction The medical literature shows evidence of numerous initiatives to improve inpatient physician handoffs. In contrast, handoffs of ambulatory patients to incoming interns or junior residents at the end of residency are an area of potential concern that has been overlooked. Objectives To examine handoffs of high-risk ambulatory patients by outgoing residents to junior colleagues and to compare current practice to a standard handoff process. We hypothesized the intervention would lead to increases in the number and quality of ambulatory care handoffs. Methods Fourteen graduating internal medicine and combined internal medicine-pediatrics residents who practiced at an academic continuity clinic were randomized to an intervention or a control group. E-mail instructions were sent asking the intervention group to write a handoff note using the clinic's electronic medical record system. The e-mail included a detailed outline of information to incorporate and highlight features of the electronic medical record that would facilitate the process. The handoff notes of the intervention and control group were independently evaluated and scored for quality using a predetermined point system. Results Six of the 7 residents (86%) in the intervention group completed 19 handoff notes; none of the residents in the control group completed handoff notes. Most of the handoffs provided a brief paragraph or 2 of background information on the patient and then focused on issues needing short-term follow-up during the coming months. Conclusions The standardized handoff process implemented via simple e-mail instructions increased the number of outpatient handoffs at the completion of residency. Further study with a larger number of residents, identification and removal of barriers to the handoff process, and correlation of handoffs to clinical outcomes are key next steps.


2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian M. Cohee ◽  
Stephen A. Koplin ◽  
William T. Shimeall ◽  
Timothy M. Quast ◽  
Joshua D. Hartzell

Abstract Background Mentorship programs are perceived as valuable, yet little is known about the effect of program design on mentoring effectiveness. Intervention We developed a program focused on mentoring relationship quality and evaluated how subsequent relationships compared to preexisting informal pairings. Methods Faculty members were invited by e-mail to participate in a new mentoring program. Participants were asked to complete a biography, subsequently provided to second- and third-year internal medicine residents. Residents were instructed to contact available mentors, and ultimately designate a formal mentor. All faculty and residents were provided a half-day workshop training, written guidelines, and e-mails. Reminders were e-mailed and announced in conferences approximately monthly. Residents were surveyed at the end of the academic year. Results Thirty-seven faculty members completed the biography, and 70% (26 of 37) of residents responded to the survey. Of the resident respondents, 77% (20 of 26) chose a formal mentor. Of the remainder, most had a previous informal mentor. Overall, 96% (25 of 26) of the residents had identified a mentor of some kind compared to 50% (13 of 26) before the intervention (P < .001), and 70% (14 of 20) who chose formal mentors identified them as actual mentors. Similar numbers of residents described their mentors as invested in the mentorship, and there was no statistical difference in the number of times mentors and mentees met. Conclusions Facilitated selection of formal mentors produced relationships similar to preexisting informal ones. This model may increase the prevalence of mentorship without decreasing quality.


Author(s):  
Nestor J. Zaluzec

The Information SuperHighway, Email, The Internet, FTP, BBS, Modems, : all buzz words which are becoming more and more routine in our daily life. Confusing terminology? Hopefully it won't be in a few minutes, all you need is to have a handle on a few basic concepts and terms and you will be on-line with the rest of the "telecommunication experts". These terms all refer to some type or aspect of tools associated with a range of computer-based communication software and hardware. They are in fact far less complex than the instruments we use on a day to day basis as microscopist's and microanalyst's. The key is for each of us to know what each is and how to make use of the wealth of information which they can make available to us for the asking. Basically all of these items relate to mechanisms and protocols by which we as scientists can easily exchange information rapidly and efficiently to colleagues in the office down the hall, or half-way around the world using computers and various communications media. The purpose of this tutorial/paper is to outline and demonstrate the basic ideas of some of the major information systems available to all of us today. For the sake of simplicity we will break this presentation down into two distinct (but as we shall see later connected) areas: telecommunications over conventional phone lines, and telecommunications by computer networks. Live tutorial/demonstrations of both procedures will be presented in the Computer Workshop/Software Exchange during the course of the meeting.


2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 13-15
Author(s):  
Stephen L. Demeter

Abstract A long-standing criticism of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) has been the inequity between the internal medicine ratings and the orthopedic ratings; in the comparison, internal medicine ratings appear inflated. A specific goal of the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, was to diminish, where possible, those disparities. This led to the use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health from the World Health Organization in the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, including the addition of the burden of treatment compliance (BOTC). The BOTC originally was intended to allow rating internal medicine conditions using the types and numbers of medications as a surrogate measure of the severity of a condition when other, more traditional methods, did not exist or were insufficient. Internal medicine relies on step-wise escalation of treatment, and BOTC usefully provides an estimate of impairment based on the need to be compliant with treatment. Simplistically, the need to take more medications may indicate a greater impairment burden. BOTC is introduced in the first chapter of the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, which clarifies that “BOTC refers to the impairment that results from adhering to a complex regimen of medications, testing, and/or procedures to achieve an objective, measurable, clinical improvement that would not occur, or potentially could be reversed, in the absence of compliance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document