Using focus groups to understand causes for morale decline after introducing change in an IM residency program

BMC Medical Education

Khanh Trieu⁴  Zarema Singson¹  Swapna Reddy²  Keenu Hundal⁵  Cliff Fornwalt⁶  Johanna Shapiro⁷  Lloyd Rucker³ 

[1] Gastroenterology Consultants of San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA;The Oregon Clinic, Portland, Oregon, USA;Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CA, USA;Southern California Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, Irvine, CA, USA;Providence Health and Services, Portland, Oregon, USA;Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine; VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, USA;Department of Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, 101 The City Drive South, Rte 81, Bldg 200, Ste 835, Orange, CA 92868, USA

关键词: Burnout;    Morale;    Qualitative research;    Focus groups;    Residency program evaluation;    Education medical graduate;   

Others  :  866335
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-132

 received in 2013-12-22, accepted in 2014-06-30,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Although program evaluation is a core requirement of Internal Medicine residencies, little is reported in the literature regarding resident satisfaction with training. Most program evaluation consists of numerical rating scales from which it is often difficult to pinpoint exact sources of dissatisfaction.

Methods

Our goal in this work is to evaluate the utility of focus group methodology to uncover in detail the reasons for residents’ deteriorating morale in an IM residency program, as well as to solicit suggestions for correction. This study employed focus groups (FG) in a qualitative research design, in which descriptive statistics from a resident program evaluation survey served to guide an intensive focus group process. Participants were 40 of 45 2^nd and 3^rd year internal medicine residents enrolled in the IM residency training program. Five chief residents were trained to conduct 5 focus groups with 8 residents in each group. The focus groups examined possible issues contributing to the deterioration of morale noted in the quantitative survey.

Results

Many unexpected themes were uncovered by the FGs. Residents identified the following factors as the major contributors to deteriorating morale: 1) Pace of change 2) Process of change 3) The role of chief residents in change 4) Fear of intimidation and retaliation. Groups also suggested practical recommendations for improving the culture of the residency.

Conclusion

Introducing change in residency training is a challenging process. Respectful attention to resident frustrations and solution-focused discussions are necessary to understand and improve morale. Focus groups proved to be a useful tool in revealing the precise source of pervasive resident concerns as well as providing potential solutions. In addition, FGs methodology can be adapted in a practical manner to residency evaluation.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Rucker et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]ACGME common requirements for residency programs in internal medicine. 2013. Retrieved July 8, 2014 from http://acgme.org/acgmeweb/portals/0/PFassets/2013-PR-FAQ-PIF/140_internal_medicine_07012013.pdf webcite
• [2]Meyers FJ, Weinberger SE, Fitzgibbons JP, Glassroth J, Duffy FD, Clayton CP, Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine Education Redesign Task Force: Redesigning residency training in internal medicine: the consensus report of the alliance for academic internal medicine education redesign task force. Acad Med 2007, 82:1211-1219.
• [3]Cohen JS, Patten S: Well-being in residency training: a survey examining resident physician satisfaction both within and outside of residency training and mental health in Alberta. BMC Med Educ 2005, 5:21.
• [4]Levey RE: Sources of stress for residents and recommendations for programs to assist them. Acad Med 2001, 76:142-150.
• [5]Mareiniss DP: Decreasing GME training stress to foster residents’ professionalism. Acad Med 2004, 79:825-831.
• [6]West CP, Shanafelt TD, Kolars JC: Quality of life, burnout, educational debt, and medical knowledge among internal medicine residents. JAMA 2011, 306:952-960.
• [7]Ripp J, Fallar R, Babyatsky M, David R, Reich L, Korenstein D: Prevalence of resident burnout at the start of training. Teach Learn Med 2010, 22:172-175.
• [8]Campbell J, Prochazka AV, Yamashita T, Gopal R: Predictors of persistent burnout in internal medicine residents: a prospective cohort study. Acad Med 2010, 85:1630-1634.
• [9]Randall CS, Bergus GR, Schlechte JA, McGuinness G, Mueller CW: Factors associated with primary care residents’ satisfaction with their training. Fam Med 1997, 29:730-735.
• [10]Satterfield JM, Becerra C: Developmental challenges, stressors and coping strategies in medical residents: a qualitative analysis of support groups. Med Educ 2010, 44:908-916.
• [11]Harrell MC, Bradley MA: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In RAND Corporation Technical Report Series; Training Manual). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Publishing; 2009.
• [12]Wellings K, Branigan P, Mitchell K: Discomfort, discord and discontinuity as data: using focus groups to research sensitive topics. Cult Health Sex 2000, 2:255-267.
• [13]Wong LP: Focus group discussion: a tool for health and medical research. Singapore Med J 2008, 49:256-261.
• [14]Teufel-Shone NI, Williams S: Focus groups in small communities. Prev Chronic Dis 2010, 7(3):A67.
• [15]Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN: Focus groups: theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1999.
• [16]Krueger RA: Moderating focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1998.
• [17]Kitzinger J: The methodology of focus group interviews: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Hlth Illn 1994, 16:103-121.
• [18]Brown JB: The use of focus groups in clinical research. In Doing qualitative research. 2nd edition. Edited by Crabtree BF, Miller WI. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999:109-124.
• [19]Ritchie J, Spencer L: Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Analyzing qualitative data. Edited by Bryman A, Burgess RG. London: Routledge; 1994:173-194.
• [20]Krueger RA: Analyzing and reporting focus group results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1998.
• [21]Denzin NK: The research act in sociology. Chicago: Aldine; 1970.
• [22]Borkan J: Immersion/crystallization. In Doing qualitative research. 2nd edition. Edited by Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999:179-194.
• [23]Malterud K: Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 2001, 358:483-488.
• [24]Weinberger M, Ferguson JA, Westmoreland G, Mamlin LA, Segar DS, Eckert GJ, Greene JY, Martin DK, Tierney WM: Can raters consistently evaluate the content of focus groups? Soc Sci Med 1998, 46:929-933.
• [25]Rushton CH: Principled moral outrage: an antidote to moral distress? AACN Adv Crit Care 2013, 24:82-9.
• [26]Batalden MK, Warm EJ, Logio LS: Beyond a curricular design of convenience: replacing the noon conference with an academic half day in three internal medicine residency programs. Acad Med 2013, 88:644-51.
• [27]Jones GL, Lima E: The effects of residency practice redesign on providers and staff. Fam Med 2011, 43:522-525.
• [28]Haoka T, Sasahara S, Tomotsune Y, Yoshino S, Maeno T, Matsuzaki I: The effect of stress-related factors on mental health status among resident doctors in Japan. Med Educ 2010, 44:826-834.
• [29]Krueger RA, Casey MA: Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2008.
• [30]Ratanawongsa N, Wright SM, Carrese JA: Well-being in residency: a time for temporary imbalance? Med Educ 2007, 41:273-280.
• [31]Ackerman A, Graham M, Schmidt H, Stern DT, Miller SZ: Critical events in the lives of interns. JGIM 2008, 24:27-32.