The State of the Service: A Survey of Psychiatry Resident Education in Psychosomatic Medicine

Background Although required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, training of general psychiatry residents in Psychosomatic Medicine (PM) varies significantly between programs. In 1996, the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine (APM) developed guidelines for residency training in...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychosomatics (Washington, D.C.) D.C.), 2013-11, Vol.54 (6), p.560-566
Hauptverfasser: Heinrich, Thomas W., M.D, Schwartz, Ann C., M.D, Zimbrean, Paula C., M.D, Wright, Mark T., M.D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Although required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, training of general psychiatry residents in Psychosomatic Medicine (PM) varies significantly between programs. In 1996, the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine (APM) developed guidelines for residency training in PM. Since then, there has been no assessment of the status of PM training during psychiatry residency. Objective Assessment of the current state of PM training in U.S. psychiatry residency programs. Method A 46-item questionnaire was sent via e-mail to 206 residency directors. Four major areas were assessed: the timing and duration of the PM rotation, level of faculty supervision, didactic curriculum, and role (or potential role) of the APM in residency education. Results Ninety-two surveys were returned (response rate 45%). Forty-four (54%) of the general psychiatry residencies reported the total duration of the C-L rotation as being between 3 and 6 months (including both full- and part-time rotation). Only 38 (46%) programs' residents complete their PM experience in 1 year of residency. The average Full-Time Equivalent of teaching faculty per service was 1.74 (standard deviation 0.92). Sixty-four (77%) programs have a formal didactic curriculum in C-L. Eighty-one (98%) respondents were aware of the APM. Fifty-eight (70%) had APM members among faculty. The most popular responses on how the APM could best serve training programs were the creation of a subspecialty curriculum (73%) as well as the development of a competency-based evaluation tool (66%). Conclusions There is significant variation in how residents are taught PM during their training. The APM is a well-recognized organization that may define what constitutes adequate residency training in PM and may help programs fulfill the educational needs of residents.
ISSN:0033-3182
1545-7206
DOI:10.1016/j.psym.2013.07.005