Band 117, Heft 4

In July 2014, the American Osteopathic Association House of Delegates endorsed the establishment of a new, single graduate medical education accreditation system in collaboration with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine. Since that time, the osteopathic medical community has made substantial headway in the transition to the new system. This article provides an update on the transition.

Background: Between 2015 and 2020, residency programs accredited through the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) are preparing the single graduate medical education (GME) system through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Objectives: (1) To assess the attitudes of family medicine program directors in programs accredited dually by the AOA and ACGME (AOA/ACGME) or ACGME only toward the clinical and academic preparedness of osteopathic residency candidates and (2) to determine program director attitudes toward the perceived value of osteopathic-focused education, including osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) curricula. Methods: A survey was sent to program directors of AOA/ACGME and ACGME-only accredited family medicine residency programs. Items concerned program directors’ perception of the academic and clinical strength of osteopathic residents at the onset of residency, the presence of osteopathic faculty and residents currently in the program, and the presence of formal curricula for teaching OMT. The perceived value of osteopathic focus was obtained through a composite score of 5 items. Results: A total of 38 AOA/ACGME family medicine residency program directors (17%) and 211 ACGME family medicine residency program directors (45.6%) completed the survey (N=249). No difference was found in the ranking of the perceived clinical preparation of osteopathic residents vs allopathic residents in programs with and without OMT curricula (P=.054). Directors of programs with OMT curricula perceived the academic preparation of their osteopathic residents vs allopathic residents more highly than those without OMT curricula (P=.039). Directors of AOA/ACGME programs perceived both the academic preparation and clinical preparation of their osteopathic residents more highly than those at ACGME-only programs (P=.004 and P=.002, respectively). Conclusion: Directors of AOA/ACGME programs, as well as those whose programs have an osteopathic focus in curricular offerings, were more likely to rank the academic preparation of osteopathic residents higher than directors of ACGME-only programs and those without OMT curricula. Further research is needed to determine the value of osteopathic recognition in attracting strong family medicine residency candidates.

Context: Competition for postdoctoral training positions is at an all-time high, and residency program directors continue to have little direction when it comes to structuring an effective interview process. Objectives: To examine whether a relationship existed between interview methods used and program director satisfaction with resident selection decisions and whether programs that used methods designed to assess candidate personal characteristics were more satisfied with their decisions. Methods: Residency directors from the Statewide Campus System at the Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine were invited to complete a 20-item survey regarding their recent interview methods and proportion of resident selections later regretted. Data analyses examined relationships between interview methods used, frequency of personal characteristics evaluated, and subsequent satisfaction with selected residents. Results: Of the 186 program director surveys distributed, 83 (44.6%) were returned, representing 11 clinical specialty areas. In total, 69 responses (83.1%) were from programs accredited by the American Osteopathic Association only, and 14 (16.9%) were from programs accredited dually by the American Osteopathic Association and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The most frequent interview method reported was faculty or peer resident interview. No statistically significant correlational relationships were found between type of interview methods used and subsequent satisfaction with selected residents, either within or across clinical specialties. Although program directors rated ethical behavior/honesty as the most highly prioritized characteristic in residents, 27 (32.5%) reported using a specific interview method to assess this trait. Program directors reported later regrets concerning nearly 1 of every 12 resident selection decisions. Conclusion: The perceived success of an osteopathic residency program’s interview process does not appear to be related to methods used and is not distinctively different from that of programs dually accredited. The findings suggest that it may not be realistic to aim for standardization of a common set of best interview methods or ideal personal characteristics for all programs. Each residency program’s optimal interview process is likely unique, more dependent on analyzing why some resident selections are regretted and developing an interview process designed to assess for specific desirable and unwanted characteristics.

Context: Traditional medical education is shifting to incorporate learning technologies and online educational activities with traditional face-to-face clinical instruction to engage students, especially at remote clinical training sites. Objective: To describe and evaluate the effectiveness of the blended learning format (combining online and face-to-face instruction) for third-year osteopathic medical students during their pediatric rotation. Methods: Third-year medical students who completed the 4-week clerkship in pediatrics during the 2014-2015 academic year were divided into a standard learning group and a blended learning group with online activities (discussion boards, blogs, virtual patient encounters, narrated video presentations, and online training modules). Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Achievement Test scores and final course grades were compared between the standard learning and blended learning groups. Students in the blended learning group completed a postsurvey regarding their experiences. Results: Of 264 third-year students who completed the 4-week clerkship in pediatrics during the 2014-2015 academic year, 78 (29.5%) participated in the blended learning supplement with online activities. Of 53 students who completed the postsurvey in the blended learning group, 44 (83.0%) agreed or strongly agreed that “The integration of e-learning and face-to-face learning helped me learn pediatrics.” Open-ended comments supported this overall satisfaction with the course format; however, 26 of 100 comments reflected a desire to increase the amount of clinical exposure and face-to-face time with patients. No statistical differences were seen between the standard learning (n=186) and blended learning (n=78) groups with regard to Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Achievement Test scores (P=.321). Compared with the standard learning group, more students in the blended learning group received a final course grade of honors (P=.015). Conclusion: Results of this study support the use of blended learning in a clinical training environment. As more medical educators use blended learning, it is important to investigate the best balance between learning with technology and learning in a face-to-face setting. Online activities may enhance but should never fully replace face-to-face learning with real patients.

Context: Interprofessional education (IPE) creates dynamic experiential learning that can address social determinants of health that influence health outcomes. Objective: To examine the effects of including public health students on IPE teams on the interprofessional practice domain constructs (values/ethics, roles/responsibilities, interprofessional communication, and teams and teamwork). Methods: This single-case, mixed-methods study was performed using a grounded theory approach. Students from 8 graduate health sciences programs participated in an asynchronous, 6-week, online IPE learning activity. Three of the 4 interprofessional practice domain constructs were examined as outcome variables: participants’ biomedical vs biopsychosocial patient approach (values/ethics); reported change in attitudes, beliefs, or values about other health professions (roles/responsibilities); and anticipated changes in future professional behaviors/ interactions/approaches (teams and teamwork). Predictor variables were having an MPH participant on the IPE team, participants’ enrollment in a clinical or nonclinical program, and student perception of the online format (interprofessional communication). Results: Three hundred nineteen students were included, 261 from clinical and 58 from nonclinical programs. A significant association was found between having an MPH participant on the IPE teams and participants’ awareness of the influence of social determinants of health (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.13-3.66; P<.05). Program type was also significantly associated with awareness of the influence of social determinants of health, such that participants in nonclinical programs were significantly more likely to report the importance of social determinants of health in the care plan (OR, 3.68; 95% CI, 1.38-9.84; P<.01). Participants were significantly less likely to report future behavior change if they were in clinical programs (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.86; P<.05) or if they disliked the online format (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.42; P<.01). The model fit the data well (χ2 3 = 30.80; P<.001). Conclusion: Inclusion of MPH students on IPE teams has the potential to increase clinical participants’ awareness of the influence of social determinants of health and interest in incorporating a biopsychosocial approach to health care.

To ensure that the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination- USA (COMLEX-USA) reflects the evolving practice of osteopathic medicine, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners has developed new content and format specifications for an enhanced, competency-based examination program to be implemented with COMLEX-USA Level 3 in 2018. This article summarizes the evidence-based design processes that served as the foundation for blueprint development and the evidence supporting its validity. An overview is provided of the blueprint’s 2 dimensions: Competency Domains and Clinical Presentations. The authors focus on the evidence that supports interpretation of test scores for the primary and intended purpose of COMLEX-USA, which is osteopathic physician licensure. Important secondary uses and the educational and catalytic effect of assessments are also described. This article concludes with the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners’ plans to ensure that the COMLEX-USA series remains current and meets the needs of its stakeholders-the patients who seek care from osteopathic physicians.