Search

ObjectivesWe sought to report medical student and faculty perceptions of the purpose and utility of questions on clinical rounds.MethodsWe developed and administered a survey to third and fourth-year medical students and teaching physicians. The survey elicited attitudes about using questions to teach on rounds in both benign and malignant learning environments.ResultsNinety-seven percent of faculty and 85% of students predicted they will use questions to teach. Nine percent of students described learning-impairing stress during benign bedside teaching. Fifty-nine percent of faculty felt questions were mostly for teaching; 74% of students felt questions were mostly for evaluation. Forty-six percent of students felt questions underestimated their knowledge. Students felt questions were more effective for classroom teaching than bedside teaching. Faculty and students agreed that a malignant environment detrimentally affected learning and performance.ConclusionsStudents and faculty supported the use of questions to teach and evaluate, especially in benign teaching environments. Many students described stress severe enough to affect their learning and performance, even when questioned in benign teaching environments. Faculty underestimated the degree to which students experience stress-related learning impairment and the degree to which students see questions as evaluation rather than teaching. Nearly half of students felt that questions underestimated their own knowledge. Students feel more stress and less learning when questioned with a patient present. Faculty must realize that even in the best learning environment some students experience stress-impaired learning and performance, perhaps because of the conflict between learning and evaluation.

Observation, including identification of key pieces of data, pattern recognition, and interpretation of significance and meaning, is a key element in medical decision making. Clinical observation is taught primarily through preceptor modelling during the all-important clinical years. No single method exists for communicating these skills, and medical educators have periodically experimented with using arts-based training to hone observational acuity. The purpose of this qualitative study was to better understand the similarities and differences between arts-based and clinical teaching approaches to convey observation and pattern recognition skills.A total of 38 Year 3 students participated in either small group training with clinical photographs and paper cases (group 1), or small group training using art plus dance (group 2), both consisting of 3 2-hour sessions over a 6-month period.Students in both conditions found value in the training they received and, by both self- and instructor-report, appeared to hone observation skills and improve pattern recognition. The clinically based condition appeared to have been particularly successful in conveying pattern recognition concepts to students, probably because patterns presented in this condition had specific correspondence with actual clinical situations, whereas patterns in art could not be generalised so easily to patients. In the arts-based conditions, students also developed skills in emotional recognition, cultivation of empathy, identification of story and narrative, and awareness of multiple perspectives.The interventions studied were naturally complementary and, taken together, can bring greater texture to the process of teaching clinical medicine by helping us see a more complete 'picture' of the patient.

The Program in Medical Humanities & Arts at the University of California, Irvine, College of Medicine has been in existence for five years. The program was implemented to enhance aspects of professionalism including empathy, altruism, compassion, and caring toward patients, as well as to hone clinical communication and observational skills. It contains elective or required curriculum across all four years of medical school and required curriculum in two residency programs, organized according to structural principles of horizontal coherence, vertical complexity, and patient care applications. The program emphasizes small-group, interdisciplinary teaching and faculty development, and is notable for learners' use of creative projects to reflect on patients and themselves. Evaluation of the program indicates a positive response among learners. More systematic studies point to increases in empathy and positive attitudes toward the humanities as tools for professional development as a result of exposure to the program curriculum. Future directions include closer collaboration with the University of California, Irvine, Schools of the Arts and Humanities, involvement of local artists and writers, and development of a graduation with distinction in humanities for medical students.

Background: Although resident physicians often teach, few trials have tested interventions to improve residents' teaching skills. A pilot trial in 2001-2002 found that 13 trained resident teachers taught better than did untrained control residents.Objective: To determine whether a longitudinal residents-as-teachers curriculum improves residents' teaching skills.Design: Randomized, controlled trial from May 2001 to February 2002 (pilot trial) and March 2002 to April 2003.Setting: 4 generalist residencies affiliated with an urban academic medical center.Participants: 62 second-year residents: 23 in the 2001-2002 pilot trial and 39 more in 2002-2003; 27 of the 39 participants were medicine residents required to learn teaching skills.Intervention: A 13-hour curriculum in which residents practiced teaching and received feedback during 1-hour small-group sessions taught twice monthly for 6 months.Measurements: A 3.5-hour, 8-station, objective structured teaching examination that was enacted and rated by 50 medical students before and after the intervention. Two trained, blinded raters independently assessed each station (inter-rater reliability, 0.75).Results: In the combined results for 2001-2003, the intervention group (n = 33) and control group (n = 29) were similar in sex, specialty, and academic performance. On a 1 to 5 Likert scale, intervention residents outscored controls on overall improvement score (post-test-pretest difference, 0.74 vs. 0.07; difference between intervention and control groups, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.81]; P < 0.001) by a magnitude of 2.8 standard deviations and on all 8 individual stations. The intervention residents improved 28.5% overall, whereas the scores of control residents did not increase significantly (2.7%). In 2002-2003, 19 intervention residents similarly outscored 19 controls (post-test-pretest difference, 0.83 vs. 0.14; difference between intervention and control groups, 0.69 [CI, 0.53 to 0.84]; P < 0.001). Twenty-seven medicine residents required to learn teaching skills achieved scores similar to those of volunteers.Limitations: The study was conducted at a single institution. No "real life" assessment with which to compare the results of the objective structured teaching examination was available.Conclusions: Generalist residents randomly assigned to receive a 13-hour longitudinal residents-as-teachers curriculum consistently showed improved teaching skills, as judged by medical student raters. Residents required to participate improved as much as volunteers did. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the Advanced Patient-Doctor longitudinal course that starts at the end of Year 3 of the medical curriculum at the University of California in Irvine, California. Encouragement of the graduating class to reinvestigate key doctoring issues; Emphasis on patient-doctor relationship by integrating through the patient's eyes in the curriculum; Residency survival guide.