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.

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.

ContextMany patients who recovered from the acute phase of SARS-COV-2 infection have persistent symptoms. However, research regarding the prevalence of PCS symptoms in non-hospitalized primary care patients is scarce.

Background and Objectives: The annual Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) survey evaluates numerous variables, including resident satisfaction with the training program. We postulated that an anonymous system allowing residents to regularly express and discuss concerns would result in higher ACGME survey scores in areas pertaining to program satisfaction. Methods: One family medicine residency program implemented a process of quarterly anonymous closed-loop resident feedback and discussion in academic year 2012-2013. Data were tracked longitudinally from the 2011-2019 annual ACGME resident surveys, using academic year 2011-2012 as a baseline control. Results: For the survey item “Satisfied that evaluations of program are confidential,” years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2018-2019 showed a significantly higher change from baseline. For “Satisfied that program uses evaluations to improve,” year 2018-2019 had a significantly higher percentage change from baseline. For “Satisfied with process to deal with problems and concerns,” year 2018-2019 showed significantly higher change. For “Residents can raise concerns without fear,” years 2013-2014 and 2018-2019 saw significantly higher changes. Conclusions: These results suggest that this feedback process is perceived by residents as both confidential and promoting a culture of safety in providing feedback. Smaller changes were seen in residents’ belief that the program uses evaluations to improve, and in satisfaction with the process to deal with problems and concerns.