Introduction: The Department of Family and Preventive Medicine is home for the University of Utah’s Family Medicine Residency program. Although Utah’s diversity is steadily increasing, the race/ethnic diversity of the program’s family medicine residency does not reflect the state’s general population. Methods: From 2017 to 2021, the residency instituted several adjustments to recruitment processes, including modification of an existing screening system to better highlight resiliency in overcoming challenging life experiences; promotion of commitment to diversity during interview days; incorporation of increased participation from diverse faculty and residents on interview days; and addition of outreach from the Office of Health, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. Underrepresented in medicine (URiM) applicants were the first to be offered interviews in an identical screening score cohort, and were ranked highest in rank lists in cohorts with identical final rank scores. Results: Over the past five match cycles, Latinx residents have increased from zero to six, and underrepresented Asian residents from zero to two. In the 2021 match cycle, five of 10 incoming residents (50%) are URiM. Overall, URiM residents are now 30%, and residents of color 36%, of a total of 30 residents across all 3 training years. We found that eight URiM interviews were needed for every one URiM match. Conclusion: Intentional resident recruitment initiatives can transform racial/ethnic diversity in a family medicine residency program in a short amount of time.

New training requirements for specialties in the USA require the development of both classic EBM skills as well as skills for managing information. However, there is marked variation in the requirements among specific specialties.

The objective of this study is to compare accreditation standards across medical and surgical specialties in the USA to determine the requirements for evidence-based medicine (EBM) and information management (life-long learning) skills education in residency training programmes in the USA. We performed a descriptive analysis of 'milestones' statements that form the basis for oversight of residency training of the Next Accreditation System for the 28 major specialties and the transition year residency, searching the milestone statements for competency requirements for 15 EBM or information management topics. The search was performed independently by pairs of researchers, with a third researcher independently verifying their findings. No specialty requires all 15 topics. Basic EBM knowledge is required by fewer than half of all specialties. Only 14% of milestone statements specify the ability to identify bias in clinical research trials. Most specialties (79%) require demonstration of the use of evidence in practice. MEDLINE searching capability is required by 52% of specialties; competence in using secondary sources is required by 69%. There is little emphasis (22%) on evaluation of these information sources. Evaluation of information from experts, colleagues or pharmaceutical representatives is required by only 38%. Competence in developing methods of keeping up with new evidence is specified by only four specialties (14%). The results signal a shift in teaching requirements during residency training, away from classic evidence-based and towards information management skills. However, requirements are limited to published materials and rarely extend to information from human sources.

Introduction: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education allows flexibility for resident roles in the Milestone assessment process. The University of Utah Family Medicine Residency implemented a resident-led Milestones process to cultivate the skill of self-assessment and promote resident ownership of their learning. Methods: Residents were provided comprehensive evaluation data and asked to self-assess their competency on each Milestone, with input from their advisor. Residents presented their self-assessment to the Clinical Competency Committee, who then determined the final score for each Milestone. A 10-question survey examined perceptions of the resident-led Milestones process by residents and faculty. We calculated means and standard deviations (SD). Results: A total of 16 of 24 residents (67% response rate) and 12 of 14 faculty (86% response rate) completed the survey. Residents agreed most highly with the following statements: “I have good support from my advisor in being prepared to lead my Milestones meeting,” “I am actively engaged in guiding the development of my own Milestones ratings,” and “Leading my Milestones meeting assists me in accurately self-assessing my progress.” Residents showed high agreement that “My final Milestones scores accurately reflect my behavior and level of knowledge.” Residents rated the stress as low, in response to the statement, “My Milestones meeting is stressful for me.” Faculty responses were similar but tended toward lower scores than residents. Conclusion: The resident-led Milestones process engages residents actively in self-assessment. Residents and faculty believe the process provides accurate assessment results without undue stress; this process potentially increases residents’ ability to understand their own learning needs and direct their own learning process.

Introduction: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Rates of HCV infection are greatest in patients born from 1945 to 1965, so the Centers for Disease Control recommends a one-time screening in this cohort. Previous interventions utilizing the electronic medical record (EMR) capabilities at two University of Utah Family Medicine clinics have increased screening rates significantly, but further improvement is possible.  Methods: A family medicine resident-led continuous quality improvement (CQI) team used the Model for Improvement methods popularized by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement to create a team-based intervention with the goal of improving HCV screening in a family medicine faculty and resident clinic. An order set was created and a protocol developed that allowed medical assistants or clinic phlebotomists to order the appropriate HCV screening lab if this had not yet been done by the primary care provider. Data were extracted from the EMR that showed changes in total and monthly screening rates as well as the frequency of order set use.  Results: Monthly screening rates at the Madsen Family Medicine Clinic (Salt Lake City, UT) increased from approximately 40% to greater than 50% in the 5-month intervention period. The order set was used 19 times during this period which accounted for 18.8% of new screens. Conclusions: Creating an order set that allows medical assistants to order the HCV screening lab increased HCV screening rates in our clinic. Because order set utilization data can be extracted from the EMR, this intervention provided a process measure that can differentiate the effect of this intervention from the effects of other interventions previously undertaken in the clinic.