- Department of Family Medicine Works
Department of Family Medicine Works
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item 2024 Graduate Medical Education Exit Survey Report(2025-01) Kochhar, Komal; Ho, MonlingIndiana University School of Medicine regularly gathers information about medical students' plans after graduation. Understanding where residents and fellows choose to practice after completing their training, along with the factors influencing those decisions, has become increasingly important—particularly in light of the physician shortage and maldistribution in our state. This report aims to provide valuable insights that will assist policymakers in enhancing efforts to recruit and retain physicians in underserved areas across the state.Item Connecting Educators Statewide: The Role of Faculty Learning Communities in Medical Education Scholarship(2024-11) Kochhar, Komal; Longtin, Krista; Wilson, Shawn; Ho, Monling; Brokaw, James; Hobson, Tara; Wallach, PaulPurpose Medical educators need targeted faculty development programs to give them the skills necessary to produce educational scholarship for promotion and tenure. The Indiana University School of Medicine employs a large geographically distributed system of medical education composed of 8 regional medical campuses and the main medical campus in Indianapolis. An inherent challenge of operating such a large multi-campus system is being able to provide relevant professional development opportunities for all our medical educators across the state. Intervention Beginning the Fall of 2019, we implemented Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs) specifically designed to develop faculty competence in medical education research.1,2 All medical school faculty across our statewide system were eligible to participate. Each FLC team consisted of 4-6 medical educators engaged in a collaborative educational research project led by an experienced faculty mentor. The FLC teams met monthly via Zoom over a 2-year term to establish priorities, share ideas, distribute the workload, and produce the scholarly product(s). In addition to the group work, participants were expected to attend a series of monthly webinars to build foundational skills in educational research. Outcomes/Findings To date, 63 medical educators (both preclinical and clinical) have participated in 13 FLC teams. Each team selected their own research topic, examples of which include Pre-Clinical Instruction, Competency-Based Clinical Education, Interprofessional Education, Curriculum & Faculty Development, Mentoring, Wellness, Covid-Related Educational Initiatives, and Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. To assess participant satisfaction, surveys were administered at the mid-point and end of each FLC team’s 2-year term (68% cumulative response rate). Averaged across all teams, a majority of respondents: Rated their FLC experience as Good to Excellent (81%) Strongly agreed or agreed that the FLC process met their professional development needs (73%) Were interested in participating in future FLC teams (65%) By the end of their 2-year term, approximately half of the participants had submitted their work for publication or presentation. Lessons Learned By participating in FLCs, medical educators from the regional campuses and main campus were able to effectively collaborate on projects of mutual interest. In our experience, FLCs provide a cost-effective and sustainable model for developing medical educators. Although lack of protected time may be an impediment for clinician participation, this can be partially mitigated by requiring the clinical chair’s approval before joining an FLC team. A successful FLC program does require strong administrative oversight and organization, but can easily be replicated elsewhere. References 1. Cox, M.D. Introduction to Faculty Learning Communities. In: Cox, M.D., Richlin, L., eds. Building Faculty Learning Communities. 1st ed. Wiley Periodicals; 2004:5-23: chap 1. 2. Kochhar, K., K.J. Longtin, S. Wilson, M. Ho, J.J. Brokaw, and P.M. Wallach. Implementation of Faculty Learning Communities to Support Medical Education Scholarship in a Regional Campus System. J. Reg. Med. Campuses 6: 2, 2023. https://doi.org/10.24926/jrmc.v6i2.4886Item 2024 Indiana Family Medicine Residencies Exit Survey Report(2024-11) Kochhar , Komal; Ho, MonlingTo create successful healthcare workforce development strategies, it's crucial to grasp why Indiana family medicine residents select certain practice locations. By gaining insights into the factors that influence their choices, we can enhance our efforts to recruit and retain family medicine physicians in underserved areas across the state. Beginning in 2012, data were gathered from residents in the eleven Indiana family medicine residency programs to document their graduates’ contribution in meeting the medical care needs of the residents of Indiana and the communities where they will practice. Since 2018, three more programs have been added. Thus, data were collected from fourteen programs statewide. The 2024 Indiana Family Medicine Residencies Exit Survey© marks the 13th consecutive year of determining what these physicians plan to do after graduation; and, for those planning to primarily provide clinical care, to determine where they plan to practice. In addition, the survey also obtained overall feedback on the residents’ training and their program’s curricula, as well as ideas and suggestions for improvement.Item Implementation of an Annual “Education Day” to Foster Medical Education Scholarship in a Regional Campus System(University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing, 2024-06-24) Kochhar, Komal; Soleimani, Leila; Byrne, Bobbi; Stefanidis, Dimitrios; Pettit, Katie; Zakeri, Bita; Denny, Kim; Brokaw, James; Wallach, PaulWe implemented an annual “Education Day” at Indiana University School of Medicine to promote educational scholarship across our nine-campus system. Held each spring from 2020 to 2023, Education Day showcased the educational scholarship of our faculty, staff, and learners, and provided a forum to share best educational practices and forge new collaborations.Item Effectiveness of a Third Dose of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19–Associated Emergency Department and Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Adults During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Predominance — VISION Network, 10 States, August 2021–January 2022(U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2022-01-28) Thompson, Mark G.; Natarajan, Karthik; Irving, Stephanie A.; Rowley, Elizabeth A.; Griggs, Eric P.; Gaglani, Manjusha; Klein, Nicola P.; Grannis, Shaun J.; DeSilva, Malini B.; Stenehjem, Edward; Reese, Sarah E.; Dickerson, Monica; Naleway, Allison L.; Han, Jungmi; Konatham, Deepika; McEvoy, Charlene; Rao, Suchitra; Dixon, Brian E.; Dascomb, Kristin; Lewis, Ned; Levy, Matthew E.; Patel, Palak; Liao, I-Chia; Kharbanda, Anupam B.; Barron, Michelle A.; Fadel, William F.; Grisel, Nancy; Goddard, Kristin; Yang, Duck-Hye; Wondimu, Mehiret H.; Murthy, Kempapura; Valvi, Nimish R.; Arndorfer, Julie; Fireman, Bruce; Dunne, Margaret M.; Embi, Peter; Azziz-Baumgartner, Eduardo; Zerbo, Ousseny; Bozio, Catherine H.; Reynolds, Sue; Ferdinands, Jill; Williams, Jeremiah; Link-Gelles, Ruth; Schrag, Stephanie J.; Verani, Jennifer R.; Ball, Sarah; Ong, Toan C.; Family Medicine, School of MedicineItem Effectiveness of COVID-19 Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination in Preventing COVID-19–Associated Emergency Department and Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Nonimmunocompromised Children and Adolescents Aged 5–17 Years — VISION Network, 10 States, April 2021–January 2022(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022-03-04) Klein, Nicola P.; Stockwell, Melissa S.; Demarco, Maria; Gaglani, Manjusha; Kharbanda, Anupam B.; Irving, Stephanie A.; Rao, Suchitra; Grannis, Shaun J.; Dascomb, Kristin; Murthy, Kempapura; Rowley, Elizabeth A.; Dalton, Alexandra F.; DeSilva, Malini B.; Dixon, Brian E.; Natarajan, Karthik; Stenehjem, Edward; Naleway, Allison L.; Lewis, Ned; Ong, Toan C.; Patel, Palak; Konatham, Deepika; Embi, Peter J.; Reese, Sarah E.; Han, Jungmi; Grisel, Nancy; Goddard, Kristin; Barron, Michelle A.; Dickerson, Monica; Liao , I-Chia; Fadel, William F.; Yang, Duck-Hye; Arndorfer, Julie; Fireman, Bruce; Griggs, Eric P.; Valvi, Nimish R.; Hallowell, Carly; Zerbo, Ousseny; Reynolds, Sue; Ferdinands, Jill; Wondimu, Mehiret H.; Williams, Jeremiah; Bozio, Catherine H.; Link-Gelles, Ruth; Azziz-Baumgartner, Eduardo; Schrag, Stephanie J.; Thompson, Mark G.; Verani, Jennifer R.; Family Medicine, School of MedicineItem Factors Associated With the Intention to Receive the COVID-19 Vaccine: Cross-sectional National Study(JMIR, 2022-11) Kasting, Monica L.; Macy, Jonathan T.; Grannis, Shaun J.; Wiensch, Ashley J.; Lavista Ferres, Juan M.; Dixon, Brian E.; Family Medicine, School of MedicineBackground The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented public health crisis, and vaccines are the most effective means of preventing severe consequences of this disease. Hesitancy regarding vaccines persists among adults in the United States, despite overwhelming scientific evidence of safety and efficacy. Objective The purpose of this study was to use the Health Belief Model (HBM) and reasoned action approach (RAA) to examine COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy by comparing those who had already received 1 vaccine to those who had received none. Methods This study examined demographic and theory-based factors associated with vaccine uptake and intention among 1643 adults in the United States who completed an online survey during February and March 2021. Survey items included demographic variables (eg, age, sex, political ideology), attitudes, and health belief variables (eg, perceived self-efficacy, perceived susceptibility). Hierarchical logistic regression analyses were used for vaccine uptake/intent. The first model included demographic variables. The second model added theory-based factors to examine the association of health beliefs and vaccine uptake above and beyond the associations explained by demographic characteristics alone. Results The majority of participants were male (n=974, 59.3%), White (n=1347, 82.0%), and non-Hispanic (n=1518, 92.4%) and reported they had already received a COVID-19 vaccine or definitely would when it was available to them (n=1306, 79.5%). Demographic variables significantly associated with vaccine uptake/intent included age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.06), other race (AOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27-0.83 vs White), and political ideology (AOR 15.77, 95% CI 7.03-35.35 very liberal vs very conservative). The theory-based factors most strongly associated with uptake/intention were attitudes (AOR 3.72, 95% CI 2.42-5.73), self-efficacy (AOR 1.75, 95% CI 1.34-2.29), and concerns about side effects (AOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.76). Although race and political ideology were significant in the model of demographic characteristics, they were not significant when controlling for attitudes and beliefs. Conclusions Vaccination represents one of the best tools to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as other possible pandemics in the future. This study showed that older age, attitudes, injunctive norms, descriptive norms, and self-efficacy are positively associated with vaccine uptake and intent, whereas perceived side effects and lack of trust in the vaccine are associated with lower uptake and intent. Race and political ideology were not significant predictors when attitudes and beliefs were considered. Before vaccine hesitancy can be addressed, researchers and clinicians must understand the basis of vaccine hesitancy and which populations may show higher hesitancy to the vaccination so that interventions can be adequately targeted.Item 2023 Indiana Family Medicine Residencies Exit Survey Report(2023-11) Kochhar, Komal; Ho, Monling; Khan, MariamIn order to plan effective healthcare workforce development initiatives, it is important to understand the reasons why Indiana family medicine residents choose to practice in specific locations. Thus, having a better understanding of the factors that influence how residents choose a practice location will help improve efforts to recruit and retain family medicine physicians in areas of need within the state. The 2023 Indiana Family Medicine Residencies Exit Survey© marks the 12th consecutive year of determining what these physicians plan to do after graduation; and, for those planning to primarily provide clinical care, to determine where they plan to practice. In addition, the survey also obtained overall feedback on the residents’ training and their program’s curricula, as well as ideas and suggestions for improvement.Item 2023 Graduate Medical Education Exit Survey Report(2023-12) Kochhar, Komal; Ho, Monling; Khan, MarianIn order to plan effective healthcare workforce development initiatives, it is important to understand the reasons why the Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) residency and fellowship graduates’ choose to practice in specific locations. This study documented the proportion of residency and fellowship graduates that were planning to practice in areas of need in Indiana. The 2023 IUSM Graduate Medical Education Exit Survey© identified factors affecting graduates’ choice of practice location and gathered feedback on their self-rated level of competency training to serve the rural and underserved populations; assessment of their training program and the six Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competency areas.Item Bridging the Feedback Gap: The Efficacy of the Strategic Student Survey in Capturing the Medical Student Experience(2024-04) Kochhar, Komal; Masseria, Anthony; Walsh, Sarah; Skillman, Brian; Dunham, Jennifer; Wallach, PaulIndiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) developed the annual Strategic Student Survey (S3) in 2018 as both a mechanism to continuously monitor compliance with LCME standards and to provide a view of the student experience and allow for timely interventions. Selected items from the S3 were matched to questions asked on the in-house End of Clerkship evaluations (EOC) and the AAMC surveys - Year 2 Questionnaire (Y2Q) and Graduation Questionnaire (GQ). The present study seeks to determine the efficacy of the S3 to complement this suite of other evaluation instruments and provide a comprehensive, longitudinal view of student satisfaction with their educational experiences. Analysis of selected items common to all instruments shows evidence that the S3 does indeed provide a reasonable proxy for findings from other surveys.