Search

Background: Faculty and students debate the fairness and accuracy of medical student clerkship grades. Group decision-making is a potential strategy to improve grading.Objective: To explore how one school's grading committee members integrate assessment data to inform grade decisions and to identify the committees' benefits and challenges.Design: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with grading committee chairs and members conducted between November 2017 and March 2018.Participants: Participants included the eight core clerkship directors, who chaired their grading committees. We randomly selected other committee members to invite, for a maximum of three interviews per clerkship.Approach: Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive content analysis.Key Results: We interviewed 17 committee members. Within and across specialties, committee members had distinct approaches to prioritizing and synthesizing assessment data. Participants expressed concerns about the quality of assessments, necessitating careful scrutiny of language, assessor identity, and other contextual factors. Committee members were concerned about how unconscious bias might impact assessors, but they felt minimally impacted at the committee level. When committee members knew students personally, they felt tension about how to use the information appropriately. Participants described high agreement within their committees; debate was more common when site directors reviewed students' files from other sites prior to meeting. Participants reported multiple committee benefits including faculty development and fulfillment, as well as improved grading consistency, fairness, and transparency. Groupthink and a passive approach to bias emerged as the two main threats to optimal group decision-making.Conclusions: Grading committee members view their practices as advantageous over individual grading, but they feel limited in their ability to address grading fairness and accuracy. Recommendations and support may help committees broaden their scope to address these aspirations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The new UCSF Bridges Curriculum aims to prepare students to succeed in today's health care system while simultaneously improving it. Curriculum redesign requires assessment strategies that ensure that graduates achieve competence in enduring and emerging skills for clinical practice. Aim: To design entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for assessment in a new curriculum and gather evidence of content validity. Setting: University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. Participants: Nineteen medical educators participated; 14 completed both rounds of a Delphi survey. Program Description: Authors describe 5 steps for defining EPAs that encompass a curricular vision including refining the vision, defining draft EPAs, developing EPAs and assessment strategies, defining competencies and milestones, and mapping milestones to EPAs. A Q-sort activity and Delphi survey involving local medical educators created consensus and prioritization for milestones for each EPA. Program Evaluation: For 4 EPAs, most milestones had content validity indices (CVIs) of at least 78 %. For 2 EPAs, 2 to 4 milestones did not achieve CVIs of 78 %. Discussion: We demonstrate a stepwise procedure for developing EPAs that capture essential physician work activities defined by a curricular vision. Structured procedures for soliciting faculty feedback and mapping milestones to EPAs provide content validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Since the 2011 Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) work hour rules for residents were implemented, 24-30 h call for interns has been replaced by shift work, including night-float. The impact of these changes on undergraduate medical education experiences in internal medicine has not been described. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the current status of medical students' overnight experiences in Internal Medicine clerkships and sub-internships, and to assess internal medicine educators' perceptions of the importance of overnight work during internal medicine rotations. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: In May 2014, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) conducted its annual survey. Twenty-eight questions about student participation in overnight work and perceptions of the importance of overnight work (rated on 1-5 Likert scale, 1 = very unimportant and 5 = very important) were included. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses. Free text results were analyzed qualitatively. KEY RESULTS: The response rate was 78 %. A minority of respondents reported students having any overnight experience during the clerkship (38.7 %) or the sub-internship (40.7 %). Only 5 % of respondents reported having students assigned to night-float rotations outside of clerkships or sub-internships. Respondents agreed that overnight experiences were more important during the sub-internship than the clerkship, 4.0 ± 1.1 vs. 3.2 ± 1.2, p < 0.001. Admitting new patients, following their course and responding to emergencies were rated as important overnight tasks for both clerkship and sub-internship students. CONCLUSIONS: Overnight experiences offer students additional educational opportunities. Clerkship directors felt that the overnight experience for the sub-intern in particular was an important chance to practice providing emergency cross coverage and other intern roles. In the era of ACGME duty hours, there is a need to further examine whether there is a role for increased overnight hospital experiences for medical students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Graduate medical education programs assess trainees' performance to determine readiness for unsupervised practice. Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) are a novel approach for assessing performance of core professional tasks. AIM: To describe a pilot and feasibility evaluation of two EPAs for competency-based assessment in internal medicine (IM) residency. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Post-graduate year-1 interns (PGY-1s) and attendings at a large internal medicine (IM) residency program. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Two Entrustable professional activities (EPA) assessments (Discharge, Family Meeting) were piloted. PROGRAM FEASIBILITY EVALUATION: Twenty-eight out of 43 (65.1 %) PGY-1 s and 32/43 (74.4 %) attendings completed surveys about the Discharge EPA experience. Most who completed the EPA assessment (10/12, 83.8 %, PGY-1s; 9/11, 83.3 %, attendings) agreed it facilitated useful feedback discussions. For the Family Meeting EPA, 16/26 (61.5 %) PGY-1s completed surveys, and most who participated (9/12 PGY1s, 75 %) reported it improved attention to family meeting education, although only half recommended continuing the EPA assessment. DISCUSSION: From piloting two EPA assessments in a large IM residency, we recognized our reminder systems and time dedicated for completing EPA requirements as inadequate. Collaboration around patient safety and palliative care with relevant clinical services has enhanced implementation and buy-in. We will evaluate how well EPA-based assessment serves the intended purpose of capturing trainees' trustworthiness to conduct activities unsupervised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Touted by some as reflecting a better medical model and cited by the influential IOM report in 2000 as one of the six domains of quality care, patient-centered medicine has yet to fully establish its scientific attributes or to become mainstream. One proposed reason is failure to behaviorally define what the term 'patient-centered' actually means.Objectives: (1) To identify patient-centered articles among all reported randomized controlled trials (RCT); (2) to identify those with specific behaviorally defined interventions; (3) to identify commonalities among the behavioral definitions; and (4) to evaluate the relationship of the well-defined RCTs to patient outcomes.Data Sources: Medline from April 2010 to 1975. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: RCTs having any specific, behaviorally defined patient-centered skill(s) in an intervention with some patient outcome involving real adult patients and providers in real clinical situations. APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Critical appraisal via narrative review.Results: The prevalence of any mention of patient-centeredness among 327,219 RCTs was 0.50% (1,475 studies), from which we identified only 13 studies (0.90%) where there were behaviorally-defined patient-centered skills in an intervention. Although there were too few studies to make clinical recommendations, we identified common features of the behavioral definitions used: all went well beyond identifying individual skills. Rather, skills were grouped, prioritized, and sequenced by virtually all, often describing a stepwise patient-centered approach to, variously, gather data, address emotions, or inform and motivate.Limitations: The inherent subjectivity of our method for identifying behaviorally-defined studies could under- or over-represent truly replicable such studies considerably. Also, studies were few and very heterogeneous with interventions of widely differing intensity and foci.Conclusions and Implications: RCTs identified as patient-centered were rare, and <1% of these were behaviorally defined and, therefore, possibly replicable. There were many common behavioral definitions in the studies reported, and these can guide us in identifying agreed-upon patient-centered interventions, the immediate next-step in advancing the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents abstracts on medical topics which includes the use of simulation based education to reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections, defining professionalism from the perspective of patients, physicians and nurses and a systematic review of tools for direct observation and assessment of clinical skills for medical trainees.

Introduction: Faculty assessment of students' professionalism is often based upon sporadic exposure to students. Peers are in a unique position to provide valid judgments of these behaviors.Aims: (1) To learn if peer assessments of professional conduct correlate with traditional performance measures; (2) to determine if peer assessments of professionalism influence the designation of honors, and (3) to explore student and faculty opinions regarding peer assessment.Setting: Internal Medicine Clerkship at Southern Illinois University.Program Description: Since 2001 anonymous student peer assessments of professionalism have been used in assigning clerkship grades.Program Evaluation: Peer assessments of professionalism had weak, though significant, correlations with faculty ratings (r = 0.29), performance on the NBME subject test (r = 0.28), and performance on a cumulative performance assessment (r = 0.30), and did not change the total number of honors awarded. A majority of students (71%) felt comfortable evaluating their peers, and 77% would keep the peer evaluation procedure in place. A majority of faculty (83%) indicated that peer assessments added valuable information.Discussion: Peer assessments of professional conduct have little correlation with other performance measures, are more likely to have a positive influence on final clerkship grades, and have little impact on awarding honors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents abstracts of medical topics selected for presentation at the Update in Medical Education at the 31st annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine including educational quality improvement report, a randomized controlled trial using insinuated standardized patients to assess residents' domestic violence skills following a two hour-workshop and the effect of training on primary care residents' performance in brief alcohol intervention.

Background: Deficiencies in medical education research quality are widely acknowledged. Content, internal structure, and criterion validity evidence support the use of the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) to measure education research quality, but predictive validity evidence has not been explored.Objective: To describe the quality of manuscripts submitted to the 2008 Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) medical education issue and determine whether MERSQI scores predict editorial decisions.Design and Participants: Cross-sectional study of original, quantitative research studies submitted for publication.Measurements: Study quality measured by MERSQI scores (possible range 5-18).Results: Of 131 submitted manuscripts, 100 met inclusion criteria. The mean (SD) total MERSQI score was 9.6 (2.6), range 5-15.5. Most studies used single-group cross-sectional (54%) or pre-post designs (32%), were conducted at one institution (78%), and reported satisfaction or opinion outcomes (56%). Few (36%) reported validity evidence for evaluation instruments. A one-point increase in MERSQI score was associated with editorial decisions to send manuscripts for peer review versus reject without review (OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.07-1.61, p = 0.009) and to invite revisions after review versus reject after review (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.05-1.58, p = 0.02). MERSQI scores predicted final acceptance versus rejection (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.10-1.58, p = 0.003). The mean total MERSQI score of accepted manuscripts was significantly higher than rejected manuscripts (10.7 [2.5] versus 9.0 [2.4], p = 0.003).Conclusions: MERSQI scores predicted editorial decisions and identified areas of methodological strengths and weaknesses in submitted manuscripts. Researchers, reviewers, and editors might use this instrument as a measure of methodological quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: It is not known to what extent the dean's letter (medical student performance evaluation [MSPE]) reflects peer-assessed work habits (WH) skills and/or interpersonal attributes (IA) of students. OBJECTIVE: To compare peer ratings of WH and IA of second- and third-year medical students with later MSPE rankings and ratings by internship program directors. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 281 medical students from the classes of 2004, 2005, and 2006 at a private medical school in the northeastern United States, who had participated in peer assessment exercises in the second and third years of medical school. For students from the class of 2004, we also compared peer assessment data against later evaluations obtained from internship program directors. RESULTS: Peer-assessed WH were predictive of later MSPE groups in both the second (F = 44.90, P < .001) and third years (F = 29.54, P< .001) of medical school. Interpersonal attributes were not related to MSPE rankings in either year. MSPE rankings for a majority of students were predictable from peer-assessed WH scores. Internship directors' ratings were significantly related to second- and third-year peer-assessed WH scores (r = .32 [P= .15] and r = .43 [P = .004]), respectively, but not to peer-assessed IA. CONCLUSIONS: Peer assessment of WH, as early as the second year of medical school, can predict later MSPE rankings and internship performance. Although peer- assessed IA can be measured reliably, they are unrelated to either outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As educators seek confirmation of successful trainee achievement, medical education must move toward a more evidence-based approach to teaching and evaluation. Although medical training often provides physicians with a general background in biostatistics, many are not prepared to apply these skills. This can hinder clinician educators as they wish to develop, analyze and disseminate their scholarly work. This paper is intended to be a concise educational tool and guide for choosing and interpreting statistical tests aimed toward medical education assessment. It includes guidelines and examples that clinician-educators can use when analyzing and interpreting studies and when writing methods and results sections of reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]