Search

Despite the many clerkship models of medical education, all can be considered a form of experiential learning. Experiential learning is a complex pedagogical approach involving the development of cognitive skills in an environment with a unique culture with multiple stakeholders, which may impact learner motivation, confidence, and other noncognitive drivers of success. Students may delay the transition to the clerkship year for myriad reasons, and the intricate nature of experiential learning suggested this may impact student performance. This retrospective, observational study investigated the impact of clerkship postponement by measuring subsequent clerkship performance. Pre-clerkship and third-year clerkship performance were analyzed for three cohorts of students (classes of 2018, 2019, and 2020, N = 274) where students had the option to delay the start of their clerkship year. A mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired t-tests were conducted to compare academic performance over time among students who did and did not delay. Across three cohorts of students, 12% delayed the start of the clerkship year (N = 33). Regardless of prior academic performance, these students experienced a significant reduction in clerkship grades compared to their non-delaying peers. Delaying the start of the clerkship year may have negative durable effects on future academic performance. This information should be kept in mind for student advisement.

Issue: Calls to change medical education have been frequent, persistent, and generally limited to alterations in content or structural re-organization. Self-imposed barriers have prevented adoption of more radical pedagogical approaches, so recent predictions of the 'inevitability' of medical education transitioning to online delivery seemed unlikely. Then in March 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic forced medical schools to overcome established barriers overnight and make the most rapid curricular shift in medical education's history. We share the collated reports of nine medical schools and postulate how recent responses may influence future medical education. Evidence: While extraneous pandemic-related factors make it impossible to scientifically distinguish the impact of the curricular changes, some themes emerged. The rapid transition to online delivery was made possible by all schools having learning management systems and key electronic resources already blended into their curricula; we were closer to online delivery than anticipated. Student engagement with online delivery varied with different pedagogies used and the importance of social learning and interaction along with autonomy in learning were apparent. These are factors known to enhance online learning, and the student-centered modalities (e.g. problem-based learning) that included them appeared to be more engaging. Assumptions that the new online environment would be easily adopted and embraced by 'technophilic' students did not always hold true. Achieving true distance medical education will take longer than this 'overnight' response, but adhering to best practices for online education may open a new realm of possibilities. Implications: While this experience did not confirm that online medical education is really 'inevitable,' it revealed that it is possible. Thoughtfully blending more online components into a medical curriculum will allow us to take advantage of this environment's strengths such as efficiency and the ability to support asynchronous and autonomous learning that engage and foster intrinsic learning in our students. While maintaining aspects of social interaction, online learning could enhance pre-clinical medical education by allowing integration and collaboration among classes of medical students, other health professionals, and even between medical schools. What remains to be seen is whether COVID-19 provided the experience, vision and courage for medical education to change, or whether the old barriers will rise again when the pandemic is over.

Background The Medical School Performance Evaluation (MSPE) is an important factor for application to residency programs. Many medical schools are incorporating recent recommendations from the Association of American Medical Colleges MSPE Task Force into their letters. To date, there has been no feedback from the graduate medical education community on the impact of this effort. Objective We surveyed individuals involved in residency candidate selection for internal medicine programs to understand their perceptions on the new MSPE format. Methods A survey was distributed in March and April 2018 using the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine listserv, which comprises 4220 individuals from 439 residency programs. Responses were analyzed, and themes were extracted from open-ended questions. Results A total of 140 individuals, predominantly program directors and associate program directors, from across the United States completed the survey. Most were aware of the existence of the MSPE Task Force. Respondents read a median of 200 to 299 letters each recruitment season. The majority reported observing evidence of adoption of the new format in more than one quarter of all medical schools. Among respondents, nearly half reported the new format made the MSPE more important in decision-making about a candidate. Within the MSPE, respondents recognized the following areas as most influential: academic progress, summary paragraph, graphic representation of class performance, academic history, and overall adjective of performance indicator (rank). Conclusions The internal medicine graduate medical education community finds value in many components of the new MSPE format, while recognizing there are further opportunities for improvement.

Medical students provide clinical teaching faculty with feedback on their skills as educators through anonymous surveys at the end of their clerkship rotation. Because faculty are in a position of power, students are hesitant to provide candid feedback. Our objective was to determine if medical students were willing to provide negative upward feedback to clinical faculty and describe how they conveyed their feedback. A qualitative analysis of third year medical students' open-ended comments from evaluations of six clerkships was performed using politeness theory as a conceptual framework. Students were asked to describe how the clerkship enhanced their learning and how it could be improved. Midway through the academic year, instructions to provide full names of faculty/residents was added. Overall, there were significantly more comments on what worked well than suggestions for improvement regarding faculty/residents. Instructing students to name-names increased the rate of naming from 35% to 75% for what worked well and from 13% to 39% for suggestions for improvement. Hedging language was included in 61% of suggestions for improvement, but only 2% of what worked well. Students described the variability of their experience, used passive language and qualified negative experiences with positive ones. Medical students may use linguistic strategies, such as impersonalizing and hedging, to mitigate the impact of negative upward feedback. Working towards a culture that supports upward feedback would allow students to feel more comfortable providing candid comments about their experience.

The Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) is an important tool of communication used by program directors to make decisions in the residency application process. To understand the perspective and usage of the MSPE across multiple medical specialties now and in anticipation of the planned changes in USMLE Step 1 score-reporting. A survey instrument including quantitative and qualitative measures was developed and piloted. The final survey was distributed to residency programs across 28 specialties in 2020 via the main contact on the ACGME listserv. Of the 28 specialties surveyed, at least one response was received from 26 (93%). Eight percent of all programs (364/4675) responded to the survey, with most respondents being program directors. Usage of the MSPE varied among specialties. Approximately 1/3 of end-users stated that the MSPE is very or extremely influential in their initial screening process. Slightly less than half agreed or strongly agreed that they trust the information to be an accurate representation of applicants, though slightly more than half agree that the MSPE will become more influential once USMLE Step 1 becomes pass/fail. Professionalism was rated as the most important component and noteworthy characteristics among the least important in the decision-making process. Performance in the internal medicine clerkship was rated as the most influential while neurology and psychiatry performances were rated as less influential. Overwhelmingly, respondents suggested that including comparative performance and/or class rank would make the MSPE more useful once USMLE Step 1 becomes pass/fail. MSPE end-users across a variety of specialties utilize this complex document in different ways and value it differentially in their decision-making processes. Despite this, continued mistrust of the MSPE persists. A better understanding of end-users’ perceptions of the MSPE offers the UME community an opportunity to transform the MSPE into a highly valued, trusted document of communication.

Background The Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) provides important information to residency programs. Despite recent recommendations for standardization, it is not clear how much variation exists in MSPE content among schools. Objectives We describe the current section content of the MSPE in US allopathic medical schools, with a particular focus on variations in the presentation of student performance. Methods A representative MSPE was obtained from 95.3% (143 of 150) of allopathic US medical schools through residency applications to the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in select programs for the 2019–2020 academic year. A manual data abstraction tool was piloted in 2018–2019. After training, it was used to code all portions of the MSPE in this study. The results were analyzed, and descriptive statistics were reported. Results In preclinical years, 30.8% of MSPEs reported data regarding performance of students beyond achieving “passes” in a pass/fail curriculum. Only half referenced performance in the fourth year including electives, acting internships, or both. About two-thirds of schools included an overall descriptor of comparative performance in the final paragraph. Among these schools, a majority provided adjectives such as “outstanding/excellent/very good/good,” while one-quarter reported numerical data categories. Regarding clerkship grades, there were numerous nomenclature systems used. Conclusions This analysis demonstrates the existence of extreme variability in the content of MSPEs submitted by US allopathic medical schools in the 2019–2020 cycle, including the components and nomenclature of grades and descriptors of comparative performance, display of data, and inclusion of data across all years of the medical education program.

Medical knowledge examinations employing open-ended (constructed response) items can be useful to assess medical students' factual and conceptual understanding. Modern day curricula that emphasize active learning in small groups and other interactive formats lend themselves to an assessment format that prompts students to share conceptual understanding, explain, and elaborate. The open-ended question examination format can provide faculty with insights into learners' abilities to apply information to clinical or scientific problems, and reveal learners' misunderstandings about essential content. To implement formative or summative assessments with open-ended questions in a rigorous manner, educators must design systems for exam creation and scoring. This includes systems for constructing exam blueprints, items and scoring rubrics, and procedures for scoring and standard setting. Information gained through review of students' responses can guide future educational sessions and curricular changes in a cycle of continuous improvement.

Background: Longitudinal standardized patient (LSP) experiences mimic clinical practice by allowing students to interact with standardized patients (SPs) over time. LSP cases facilitate practice, assessment, and feedback in clinical skills and foster an appreciation for the continuum of care. Objective: We sought to characterize the nature of relationship-building, feedback, and continuity among all stakeholders participating in a single LSP program. Design: We developed and implemented a novel LSP program. Students encountered two LSP characters six times each during the first 2 years of medical school, though continuity pairings of students, SPs, and faculty were frequently not possible. Focus groups were held with second-year medical students (N = 15), core faculty who coached these students in LSP encounters (N = 8), and SPs who had played the role of either LSP character (N = 10) participated. Results were analyzed thematically using a template analysis approach. Results: The longitudinal nature of the experience reinforced the importance of student growth over time, the key role of faculty and SPs in providing feedback, and the tension between feedback and assessment. Students reported that LSP cases encouraged practice and feedback. SPs felt wedded to the longitudinal characters. Continuity pairings were recommended by all stakeholders to increase authenticity and promote relationship-building. Conclusion: Stakeholders observed that the LSP cases brought some sense of continuity missing in other clinical skills encounters which helped prepare students for patient care. Continuity pairings of students, faculty, and SPs were recommended to enhance relationship-building and feedback.

Background: Two dominant themes face medical education: developing integrated curricula and improving the undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education (GME) transition. An innovative solution to both of these challenges at the Zucker School of Medicine has been the application of the cognitive apprenticeship framework in requiring emergency medical technician (EMT) certification during the first course in medical school as the core on which to build an integrated curriculum and provide entrustable clinical skills. Methods: Beginning with the Class of 2011, student feedback about the short-term impact of the experience was collected annually. In addition, perceptions of near graduates and alumni were surveyed in 2017 to explore the long-term impact of the experience. Theme analysis was conducted via inductive coding. Results: Both first-year and more experienced learners report the value of the EMT curriculum as an integrated component of the first course of medical school. Reported positive long-term impacts included the first-hand observation of social determinants of health and interprofessionalism. Negative comments by early learners focused on course logistics, whereas older learners recalled the variability of clinical experiences during ambulance runs. Conclusions: The integration of the EMT curriculum as a core component of the first course serves multiple purposes: 1) it provides the foundation of a spiral learning approach; 2) it contextualizes the basic sciences within clinical practice; 3) it provides opportunities for students to engage in authentic clinical activities under the guidance of mentors; 4) it introduces students to the interdisciplinary nature of medicine; and 5) it serves as the first entrustable professional activity (EPA) for our students.