Residents Take the Lead: A Modern Collaborative Approach to Research During Residency

Alev J Atalay; Kevin Ard; Emily Bethea; Kenneth B Christopher; Maria A Yialamas

doi:10.2147/AMEP.S238221

Residents Take the Lead: A Modern Collaborative Approach to Research During Residency

Adv Med Educ Pract. 2020 Feb 18:11:121-129. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S238221. eCollection 2020.

Authors

Alev J Atalay¹, Kevin Ard², Emily Bethea³, Kenneth B Christopher⁴, Maria A Yialamas¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
² Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
³ Department of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
⁴ Department of Medicine, Renal Division, Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Abstract

Background: Participation in scholarship is a requirement for Internal Medicine (IM) residencies, but programs struggle to successfully integrate research into busy clinical schedules. In 2013, the IM residency at Brigham and Women's Hospital implemented the Housestaff Research Project (HRP)- a novel residency-wide research initiative designed to facilitate participation in scholarship. The HRP had two components-a formal research curriculum and an infrastructure that provided funding and mentorship for resident-led, housestaff wide projects.

Methods: This is a mixed-methods study of 190 IM residents and two HRP-supported research projects. Seventy-seven residents responded to an electronic survey about their interests in research exposure in residency. Fifty-six residents responded to an electronic survey about their participation in the HRP. The success of HRP-supported projects was evaluated through resident comments, interviews with three residents leading the first two HRPs and a description of the success of the projects based on resident involvement and dissemination of the results.

Results: Eighty-seven percent (n= 67/77) of residents were interested in additional research exposure during residency. Ninety-five percent (n = 53/56) of residents had heard of the HRP, and 77% had participate in at least one aspect of it. Approximately 20 residents were directly involved in the two resident-led projects. HRP-supported projects resulted in presentations at three local and three national conferences, one manuscript in press, and one manuscript in preparation. The resident project leaders felt that a strength and unique aspect of the HRP was the collaboration with co-residents.

Conclusion: The HRP successfully created a culture of research and scholarship within the residency. The HRP leaders and residents that participated in HRP-supported projects expressed the most direct benefits from the program. All residents were exposed to research concepts and methods. Future directions for the HRP include selecting projects that maximize the number of resident participants and integrating a more robust research curriculum.

Keywords: graduate medical education; internal medicine; postgraduate training; research training.