Search

Objective: In 2006 the Association of American Medical Colleges recommended standardization of documentation of the contributions of medical educators and guidelines for their academic promotion. The authors characterized current United States (US) medical school promotion guidelines for medical educators., Methods: Authors collected publicly available data from medical school promotion websites from March through July 2022 after determining categories by traditional-set domains as well as peer-reviewed standards. Extracted data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and frequencies were calculated for nominal and categorical data., Results: Of 155 medical schools identified, promotion criteria were publicly available for 143 (92%) schools. Ninety-one (64%) schools identified a distinct educator track. Of those with a defined educator track, 44 (48%) schools consider workshops or other media when evaluating candidates for promotion, and only 52 (57%) of schools with a specified educational track require additional documentation of teaching or education as part of their promotion process. Notably, 34 (37%) of the 91 schools with an educator track specifically require an Educational Portfolio, compared to 27 (52%) of the 52 schools that do not have a specific educator track for promotion., Conclusion: This study describes the current lack of clarity and consistency of the promotion criteria for medical educators and indicates that the guidelines proposed by the Association of American Medical Colleges over 15 years ago have not been widely adopted. These data amplify previous calls for a more objective set of criteria for evaluating and recognizing the contributions of medical educators., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To perform a qualitative content analysis of learning and assessment strategies that pediatric subinterns describe in Individualized Learning Plans (ILPs) and to explore barriers and facilitators to their learning., Methods: We analyzed ILPs from medical students enrolled in pediatric subinternships at 10 US medical schools that utilized a standardized curriculum and were recruited to reflect diversity in geographic location, funding, and enrollment. Students used an ILP to record 3 or more selected learning objectives, rationale for selection, and reflection on learning and assessment strategies. Investigators used the constant comparative method to perform a content analysis of the ILPs, grouping codes into themes, and verifying relationships between codes within themes., Results: Two hundred and four ILPs that included student reflections on 850 learning objectives were analyzed. Content was analyzed in 5 categories: rationale for selecting objectives, learning strategies, assessment strategies, challenges to learning, and facilitators of learning. Students showed strong commitment to individualized, self-directed learning, developed a wide range of creative learning strategies, and relied heavily on self-reflection to assess their progress. The learning environment both helped and hindered students' ability to make and assess progress on their selected learning objectives., Conclusions: Through ILP-guided reflection and a formal curriculum, students can choose well-justified learning objectives and demonstrate resourcefulness and independence in developing self-directed learning and assessment strategies. The strategies that students identified in this study provide a menu of learning and assessment options for subinterns. Identified challenges and facilitators of learning provide guidance for educators who seek to enhance the clinical learning environment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no potential conflicts of interest or corporate sponsors to disclose. We had no funding for this study., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Some pediatric residents report experiencing less autonomy when working clinically with pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) fellows than with attendings alone. We sought to explore pediatric senior resident (SR) experiences working clinically with PHM fellows, with a focus on characterizing fellow behaviors that could impact perceived resident autonomy., Methods: In this qualitative study, we conducted virtual semistructured interviews with pediatric SRs. We recorded, deidentified, and transcribed interviews for codebook thematic analysis, making iterative adjustments to our codebook and themes until reaching thematic sufficiency., Results: We conducted 17 interviews. A subanalysis identified key components of the resident mental model of autonomy, including independent clinical decision-making with 3 core qualifiers: 1) plan follow-through, 2) availability of a safety net, and 3) ownership. Our primary analysis identified 4 key themes (with a total of 7 contributory subthemes) describing resident experiences of autonomy, scaffolded based on an organizing framework adapted from Bronfenbrenner's ecological model including 1) microsystem factors (based on direct resident-fellow or resident-leadership team interactions), 2) mesosystem factors (based on fellow-attending interactions), 3) exosystem factors (based on fellow-intrinsic characteristics), and 4) macrosystem factors (cultural values, norms, and policies governing academic pediatrics)., Conclusions: Many factors impact perceived resident autonomy on PHM fellow-inclusive teams. Although some are related to direct resident-fellow interactions, many others are more complex and may reflect resident interactions with the leadership team, attending-fellow dynamics, and the influence of cultural context. Based on our analysis, we propose several best-practice recommendations directed at fellows, attendings, the fellow-attending dyad, and Graduate Medical Education programs overall., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Boot camps are being developed and implemented by a growing number of medical schools to facilitate medical students' transition to internship. However, there is limited conceptual understanding of how this facilitation occurs., Methods: We developed and piloted a 1-week pediatric boot camp in 2015, then significantly revised and evaluated the program in 2016-2017 using a conceptual framework of self-efficacy. Consistent with this framework, the revised boot camp focuses on enhancing practical skills that can ease medical students' transition to internship. Observations and course evaluations informed process evaluation, whereas learner assessments immediately after and at 6 months after the boot camp informed outcomes evaluation in terms of both perceived self-efficacy and confidence., Results: Medical students valued sessions that were "hands on," and program improvements were made to include a variety of interactive curricular activities. Data from course evaluations provided evidence of increased perceived self-efficacy. Learner assessment showed a medium to large effect size for confidence in nearly all specific skills that were queried and a positive, albeit attenuated, effect on perceived self-efficacy at 6 months., Conclusions: Program evaluation of a pediatric boot camp informed by a conceptual framework of self-efficacy shed light on how it might facilitate medical students' transition to internship. A similar conceptual framework may be useful for other trainee preparatory courses., (Copyright © 2018 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Effective self-directed educational tools are invaluable. Our objective was to determine whether a self-directed, web-based oral case presentation module would improve medical students' oral case presentations compared to usual curriculum, and with similar efficacy as structured oral presentation faculty feedback sessions., Methods: We conducted a pragmatic multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial among medical students rotating in pediatric clerkships at 7 US medical schools. In the clerkship's first 14 days, subjects were instructed to complete an online Computer-Assisted Learning in Pediatrics Program (CLIPP) oral case presentation module, an in-person faculty-led case presentation feedback session, or neither (control). At the clerkship's end, evaluators blinded to intervention status rated the quality of students' oral case presentations on a 10-point scale. We conducted intention-to-treat multivariable analyses clustered on clerkship block., Results: Study participants included 256 CLIPP (32.5%), 263 feedback (33.3%), and 270 control (34.2%) subjects. Only 51.1% of CLIPP subjects completed the assigned presentation module, while 98.5% of feedback subjects participated in presentation feedback sessions. Compared to controls, oral presentation quality was significantly higher in the feedback group (adjusted difference in mean quality, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.08, 0.49) and trended toward being significantly higher in the CLIPP group (0.19; 95% confidence interval, -0.006, 0.38). The quality of presentations in the CLIPP and feedback groups was not significantly different (-0.10; 95% confidence interval, -0.31, 0.11)., Conclusions: The quality of oral case presentations delivered by students randomized to complete the CLIPP module did not differ from faculty-led presentation feedback sessions and was not statistically superior to control., (Copyright © 2018 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To document the prevalence of simulation-based education (SBE) for third- and fourth-year medical students; to determine the perceived importance of SBE; to characterize the barriers associated with establishing SBE., Methods: A 27-item survey regarding simulation was distributed to members of the Council on Medical Student Education in Pediatrics (COMSEP) as part of a larger survey in 2012., Results: Seventy-one (48%) of 147 clerkship directors (CD) at COMSEP institutions responded to the survey questions regarding the use of SBE. Eighty-nine percent (63 of 71) of CDs reported use of SBE in some form: 27% of those programs (17 of 63) reported only the use of the online-based Computer-Assisted Learning in Pediatrics Program, and 73% (46 of 63) reported usage of other SBE modalities. Fifty-four percent of CDs (38 of 71) agreed that SBE is necessary to meet the requirements of the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME). Multiple barriers were reported in initiating and implementing an SBE program., Conclusions: SBE is commonly used for instruction during pediatric undergraduate medical education in North American medical schools. Barriers to the use of SBE remain despite the perception that it is needed to meet requirements of the LCME., (Copyright © 2014 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)