Search

BackgroundTo ensure quality care, clinicians need skills, knowledge, and attitudes related to technology that can be measured. ObjectiveThis paper sought out competencies for mobile technologies and/or an approach to define them. MethodsA scoping review was conducted to answer the following research question, “What skills are needed for clinicians and trainees to provide quality care via mHealth, have they been published, and how can they be made measurable and reproducible to teach and assess them?” The review was conducted in accordance with the 6-stage scoping review process starting with a keyword search in PubMed/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, APA PsycNET, Cochrane, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus. The literature search focused on keywords in 4 concept areas: (1) competencies, (2) mobile technologies, (3) telemedicine mode, and (4) health. Moreover, 2 authors independently, in parallel, screened the search results for potentially relevant studies based on titles and abstracts. The authors reviewed the full-text articles for final inclusion based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were keywords used from concept area 1 (competencies) and 2 (mobile technologies) and either 3 (telemedicine mode) or 4 (health). Exclusion criteria included, but were not limited to, keywords used from a concept area in isolation, discussion of skills abstractly, outline or listing of what clinicians need without detail, and listing immeasurable behaviors. ResultsFrom a total of 1232 results, the authors found 78 papers eligible for a full-text review and found 14 papers directly relevant to the 4 key concepts. Although few studies specifically discussed skills, the majority were clinical studies, and the literature included no lists of measurable behaviors or competency sets for mobile technology. Therefore, a framework for mobile technology competencies was built according to the review, expert consensus, and recommendations of the Institute of Medicine’s Health Professions Education Summit and Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education framework. This framework borrows from existing competency framework domains in telepsychiatry and social media (patient care, medical knowledge, practice-based learning and improvement, systems-based practice, professionalism, and interpersonal skills and communication) and added domains of mHealth clinical decision support, device/technology assessment/selection, and information flow management across an electronic health record platform. mHealth Asynchronous components require additional traditional learning, teaching, supervisory and evaluation practices. Interactive curricula with case-, problem-, and system-based teaching may help faculty focus on decision making and shape skills and attitudes to complement clinical exposure. ConclusionsResearch is needed on how to customize implementation and evaluation of mHealth competencies and to ensure skill development is linked to the quality of care. This will require the management of organizational change with technology and the creation of a positive electronic culture in a complex policy and regulatory environment.

BackgroundMobile technology ownership in the general US population and medical professionals is increasing, leading to increased use in clinical settings. However, data on use of mobile technology by psychiatry residents remain unclear. ObjectiveIn this study, our aim was to provide data on how psychiatric residents use mobile phones in their clinical education as well as barriers relating to technology use. MethodsAn anonymous, multisite survey was given to psychiatry residents in 2 regions in the United States, including New Orleans and Boston, to understand their technology use. ResultsAll participants owned mobile phones, and 79% (54/68) used them to access patient information. The majority do not use mobile phones to implement pharmacotherapy (62%, 42/68) or psychotherapy plans (90%, 61/68). The top 3 barriers to using mobile technology in clinical care were privacy concerns (56%, 38/68), lack of clinical guidance (40%, 27/68), and lack of evidence (29%, 20/68). ConclusionsWe conclude that developing a technology curriculum and engaging in research could address these barriers to using mobile phones in clinical practice.

Objective: To address nationally recognized needs for increased numbers of psychiatric clinician-scholars and physician-scientists, the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training (AADPRT) has provided a series of full-day conferences of psychiatry residency training directors designed to increase their competence in evidence-based medicine, enhance their research literacy, and aid them in transmitting that knowledge to their programs. Method: These conferences take place on the day before AADPRT's annual meeting. Each year's pre-meeting conference includes a series of morning plenary sessions covering new information pertaining to a contemporary clinical theme. Results: The clinical theme serves as a vehicle to teach evidence-based practice and research and neuroscience literacy. The theme is carried into the afternoon with a series of highly interactive small-group teaching sessions designed to consolidate knowledge and provide pragmatic teaching tools appropriate for residents. A detailed report of the first 5 years documented the excellent attendance, perceived satisfaction, and usefulness of the material. Conclusion: This report highlights the evolution of the program from the first 5 years to Years 6 and 7, details how new pedagogic and funding challenges have been approached, discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the revised format, and describes plans for the future. (Contains 2 tables and 1 figure.)

Objective: The increasing frequency and societal cost of psychiatric disability underscore the need for accuracy in evaluating patients who seek disability benefits. The authors investigated senior psychiatric residents' experiences performing disability evaluations, their self-assessment of competence for this task, and whether they perceived a need for more training. Methods: Seventy-nine third- and fourth-year psychiatric residents in Massachusetts and Rhode Island training programs were surveyed from May to June in 2008. Participants were asked about the frequency of requests and completion of disability evaluations, the practice patterns followed when performing evaluations, the identification of role and potential conflict of interest in doing evaluations, and their sense of preparedness and need for more training. Results: Residents reported having limited experience performing disability evaluations and followed a variety of practice patterns when performing evaluations. They reported having a limited understanding of what constitutes psychiatric disability and a lack of confidence in their ability to perform evaluations accurately. A significant minority had identified patients as disabled despite believing otherwise. A majority of residents reported receiving no didactics on psychiatric disability and desired more training. Conclusion: Residents may be unprepared to perform disability evaluations. Residency programs may need to provide additional training.