Search

Background: Scientific writing is a core component of academic hospital medicine, and yet finding time to engage in deeply focused writing is difficult in part due to the highly clinical, 24/7 nature of the specialty that can limit opportunities for writing-focused collaboration and mentorship., Objective: Our objective was to develop and evaluate an academic writing retreat program., Methods: We drafted a set of key retreat features to guide implementation of a 3-day, 2-night retreat program held within a 2 h radius of our hospital. Agendas included writing blocks ranging from 45 to 90 min interspersed with breaks and opportunities for feedback, exercise, and preparing meals together. After each retreat, we distributed an evaluation with multiple choice and free text response options to characterize retreat helpfulness and later gathered data on the status of each paper and grant worked on., Results: We held 4 retreats between September 2022 and October 2023, engaging 18 faculty and fellows at a cost of $296 per attendee per retreat. In evaluations, nearly 80% reported that the retreat was extremely helpful, and comments praised the highly mentored environment, enriching community of colleagues, and release from commitments that get in the way of writing. Of the 24 papers attendees worked on, 12 have been accepted and 6 are under review. Of the 4 grant proposals, 2 are under review., Conclusions: We implemented a low-cost, productive writing retreat program that attendees reported was helpful in supporting deep work and represented a meaningful step toward building a community centered around academic writing., (© 2024 Society of Hospital Medicine.)

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.)