Providing Graduate Medical Education Orientation to Program Coordinators: A National Survey and Analysis.
Journal
Journal of graduate medical education
ISSN: 1949-8357
Titre abrégé: J Grad Med Educ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101521733
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
05
12
2018
revised:
10
04
2019
revised:
24
06
2019
accepted:
10
07
2019
entrez:
23
10
2019
pubmed:
23
10
2019
medline:
17
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The role of a program coordinator (PC) in graduate medical education (GME) has become increasingly important. We surveyed PCs nationwide to identify the predictors of better performance outcomes. 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. 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, 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The role of a program coordinator (PC) in graduate medical education (GME) has become increasingly important.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
We surveyed PCs nationwide to identify the predictors of better performance outcomes.
METHODS
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
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,
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31636822
doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-18-01036.1
pii: Customer: JGME-D_18-01036R3
pmc: PMC6795314
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
530-534Informations de copyright
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education 2019.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest: The authors declare they have no competing interests.
Références
J Surg Educ. 2017 Nov - Dec;74(6):e120-e123
pubmed: 28865903
J Surg Educ. 2018 Nov;75(6):e38-e46
pubmed: 30122640
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Mar;466(3):737-42
pubmed: 18196362
Curr Surg. 2006 Nov-Dec;63(6):473-5
pubmed: 17084781
J Child Neurol. 2016 Mar;31(3):333-7
pubmed: 26116383
J Grad Med Educ. 2017 Aug;9(4):523-526
pubmed: 28824770
Curr Surg. 2006 Mar-Apr;63(2):143-4
pubmed: 16520119
Acad Radiol. 2017 Jun;24(6):725-729
pubmed: 28262520