Show simple item record

What Does Remediation and Probation Status Mean? A Survey of Emergency Medicine Residency Program Directors

dc.contributor.authorWeizberg, Mosheen_US
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Jessica L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMurano, Tiffanyen_US
dc.contributor.authorSilverberg, Marken_US
dc.contributor.authorSanten, Sally A.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-02-19T15:40:44Z
dc.date.available2016-03-02T19:36:56Zen
dc.date.issued2015-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationWeizberg, Moshe; Smith, Jessica L.; Murano, Tiffany; Silverberg, Mark; Santen, Sally A. (2015). "What Does Remediation and Probation Status Mean? A Survey of Emergency Medicine Residency Program Directors." Academic Emergency Medicine (1): 113-116.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1069-6563en_US
dc.identifier.issn1553-2712en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/110601
dc.description.abstractObjectivesEmergency medicine (EM) residency program directors (PDs) nationwide place residents on remediation and probation. However, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the EM PDs have not defined these terms, and individual institutions must set guidelines defining a change in resident status from good standing to remediation or probation. The primary objective of this study was to determine if EM PDs follow a common process to guide actions when residents are placed on remediation and probation.MethodsAn anonymous electronic survey was distributed to EM PDs via e‐mail using SurveyMonkey to determine the current practice followed after residents are placed on remediation or probation. The survey queried four designations: informal remediation, formal remediation, informal probation, and formal probation. These designations were compared for deficits in the domains of medical knowledge (MK) and non‐MK remediation. The survey asked what process for designation exists and what actions are triggered, specifically if documentation is placed in a resident's file, if the graduate medical education (GME) office is notified, if faculty are informed, or if resident privileges are limited. Descriptive data are reported.ResultsEighty‐one of 160 PDs responded. An official policy on remediation and/or probation was reported by 41 (50.6%) programs. The status of informal remediation is used by 73 (90.1%), 80 (98.8%) have formal remediation, 40 (49.4%) have informal probation, and 79 (97.5%) have formal probation. There was great variation among PDs in the management and definition of remediation and probation. Between 81 and 86% of programs place an official letter into the resident's file regarding formal remediation and probation. However, only about 50% notify the GME office when a resident is placed on formal remediation. There were no statistical differences between MK and non‐MK remediation practices.ConclusionsThere is significant variation among EM programs regarding the process of remediation and probation. The definition of these terms and the actions triggered are variable across programs. Based on these findings, suggestions toward a standardized approach for remediation and probation in GME programs are provided.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.titleWhat Does Remediation and Probation Status Mean? A Survey of Emergency Medicine Residency Program Directorsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110601/1/acem12559-sup-0001-DataSupplementS1.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110601/2/acem12559.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/acem.12559en_US
dc.identifier.sourceAcademic Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYao DC, Wright SM. National survey of internal medicine residency program directors regarding problem residents. JAMA 2000; 284: 1099 – 104.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteinert Y. The, “problem” junior: whose problem is it? BMJ 2008; 336: 150 – 3.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceReamy BV, Harman JH. Residents in trouble: an in‐depth assessment of the 25‐year experience of a single family medicine residency. Fam Med 2006; 38: 252 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTorbeck L, Canal DF. Remediation practices for surgery residents. Am J Surg 2009; 197: 397 – 402.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAccreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME Common Program Requirements. Available at: www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/CPRs2013.pdf. Accessed Oct 19, 2014.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKatz ED, Dahms R, Sadosty AT, Stahmer SA. Goyal D; CORD‐EM Remediation Task Force. Guiding principles for resident remediation: recommendations of the CORD remediation task force. Acad Emerg Med 2010; 17 ( Suppl 2 ): S95 – 103.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRiebschleger MP, Haftel HM. Remediation in the context of the competencies: a survey of pediatrics residency program directors. J Grad Med Educ 2013; 5: 60 – 3.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYao DC, Wright SM. The challenge of problem residents. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16: 486 – 92.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilliams RG, Roberts NK, Schwind CJ, Dunnington GL. The nature of general surgery resident performance problems. Surgery 2009; 145: 651 – 8.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.