ABSTRACT

Background

Community health centers (CHCs) and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are critical health care access points for medically underserved areas in the United States. They also provide opportunities for residents to learn about health system challenges, including workforce shortages, social determinants of health, and health equity.

Objective

We sought to describe current obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN) resident engagement and training in community health settings.

Methods

We conducted a website review and survey to identify the prevalence and types of OB-GYN resident exposure to CHCs, including FQHCs. We reviewed 241 program websites to identify community health electives or rotations. We then surveyed program administrators regarding departmental affiliations with CHCs, types of resident involvement, and barriers to resident rotations at CHCs.

Results

The website review revealed that 18% (44 of 241) of programs offered a community health rotation. Of the 241 programs surveyed, 78 program administrators responded (32%). Forty-three programs (55%) had at least 1 affiliated CHC, and 34 programs (44%) allowed residents to rotate at a CHC. The most common barrier to resident rotations at a CHC was inadequate resident coverage of hospital-based clinical responsibilities. Respondents reported that among 782 graduating residents in the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 academic years, 76 (10%) planned to pursue a position at a CHC.

Conclusions

According to their websites, a small percentage of US OB-GYN residency programs offered a CHC rotation. Of programs responding to a survey on the topic, less than half offered CHC rotations and less than 1 in 10 residents planned to work in CHCs after graduation.

ABSTRACT

Background

The Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensure Examination (COMLEX-USA) Level 2–Cognitive Examination (CE) and the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Achievement Test (COMAT) are administered to similar populations (third- and fourth-year osteopathic students) at similar points in time. Examining the relationship between scores on the 2 assessments that measure similar constructs ultimately supports the validity of both.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the concurrent and predictive validity of COMAT and COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE.

Methods

In 2018, first-attempt scores on Level 2-CE were aggregated from June 2015 to May 2018 and matched with first-attempt scores on each COMAT clinical subject. We conducted correlational analyses between performance on COMAT and Level 2-CE, and COMAT scores and Level 2-CE discipline subscores. Additionally, we used multivariate regression to analyze the predictive relationship between performance on all COMAT clinical subjects and Level 2-CE.

Results

The results from correlational analyses indicated statistically significant, positive associations between COMAT and Level 2-CE scores (r = 0.49–0.68, P < .0001), and statistically significant, but slightly weaker relationships between COMAT scores and Level 2-CE discipline subscores (r = 0.31–0.60, P < .0001). Furthermore, results from the multiple regression indicated that scores on COMAT explained 68% of the variance in Level 2-CE scores, and that COMAT internal medicine and emergency medicine were weighted more heavily than other specialties.

Conclusions

The findings from this study can inform assessment practices by supporting the use of COMAT for osteopathic medical schools that do not administer COMAT.

ABSTRACT

Background

The role of a program coordinator (PC) in graduate medical education (GME) has become increasingly important.

Objective

We surveyed PCs nationwide to identify the predictors of better performance outcomes.

Methods

A 58-question survey focusing on metrics that could be used to measure administrative performance was submitted electronically to 1515 PCs. Preplanned analysis was conducted to determine the association between receipt of training and PC performance metrics.

Results

A total of 712 (47%) PCs responded to the survey completely. Most (59%, 422 of 712) were from university programs. Respondents reported having received only GME training (17%, 121 of 712), only peer training (15%, 106 of 712), or both (9%, 67 of 712). Of those who reported, 51% (366 of 712) with GME training and 99% (708 of 712) with peer training found that training was helpful. The PCs who received both GME and peer training reported better performance, including lower rates of delayed starts and graduations, higher rates of compliance in cases and work hour reporting, and higher levels of readiness for internal reviews, GME visits, and the Match. The PCs who received only peer training reported better performance than did those with only GME training. Self-reported factors associated with improved PC performance were having prior administrative experience (β = 0.201, P = .010) and being a PC for a longer time (β = 0.188, P = .027).

Conclusions

Having only GME training did not seem sufficient for an optimal PC performance. A combination of peer and GME orientation yielded the best administrative outcomes.

The Challenge

The physician job interview seeks to match the applicant's clinical skills, career goals, and cultural fit with the health care team and organization. This Rip Out presents a systematic strategic approach to the interview to help candidates and employers.

What Is Known

Successful interviews involve 3 stages: before, during, and after the actual interview. Build on prior successful experiences (medical school, residency, fellowship, nonmedical jobs), recognizing differences.¹

How You Can Start TODAY—Before the Interview^2–5

Understand Your Goals and Prioritize

Define your “ideal job.” Consider a list of needs and desires for yourself and your family. Prioritize