Search

Background: Collective decision-making by grading committees has been proposed as a strategy to improve the fairness and consistency of grading and summative assessment compared to individual evaluations. In the 2020–2021 academic year, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis (WUSM) instituted grading committees in the assessment of third-year medical students on core clerkships, including the Internal Medicine clerkship. We explored how frontline assessors perceive the role of grading committees in the Internal Medicine core clerkship at WUSM and sought to identify challenges that could be addressed in assessor development initiatives. Methods: We conducted four semi-structured focus group interviews with resident (n = 6) and faculty (n = 17) volunteers from inpatient and outpatient Internal Medicine clerkship rotations. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Participants felt that the transition to a grading committee had benefits and drawbacks for both assessors and students. Grading committees were thought to improve grading fairness and reduce pressure on assessors. However, some participants perceived a loss of responsibility in students' grading. Furthermore, assessors recognized persistent challenges in communicating students' performance via assessment forms and misunderstandings about the new grading process. Interviewees identified a need for more training in formal assessment; however, there was no universally preferred training modality. Conclusions: Frontline assessors view the switch from individual graders to a grading committee as beneficial due to a perceived reduction of bias and improvement in grading fairness; however, they report ongoing challenges in the utilization of assessment tools and incomplete understanding of the grading and assessment process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with skin of color (P-SOC) are disproportionately burdened by lupus and often have worse disease outcomes than white patients. This is partly because educational materials underrepresent P-SOC, thereby promoting unconscious bias and clinical deficiencies among practitioners. Purpose: We sought to measure providers' confidence in diagnosing the cutaneous manifestations of lupus (i.e., lupus-related rashes) in P-SOC and to assess which factors influenced their confidence. Research Design: We created and distributed a survey that gathered information about participants' personal characteristics, clinical specialty, training, and current practice as well as measuring their confidence assessing lupus-related rashes in various skin tones. Study Sample: Practitioners from the fields of rheumatology, dermatology, and internal medicine in the greater St. Louis area (Missouri, USA) participated in the survey. Analysis: We compared practitioners' mean confidence levels assessing lupus-related rashes in patients with fair skin and P-SOC with a linear mixed effects model and used univariate and multivariate linear regression models to determine if the aforementioned factors correlated with confidence. Results: Participants' mean confidence in diagnosing lupus-related rashes in P-SOC was significantly lower than assessing such findings in patients with fair skin (p =.009). Several factors correlated with confidence level at a univariate level; however, the multivariate model revealed experience as the only factor significantly associated with confidence (p =.001). Conclusions: Providers report significantly less confidence assessing lupus-related rashes in P-SOC than in patients with fair skin. Our analysis demonstrates that experience positively correlates with confidence and suggests that interventions which enhance practitioners' exposure to and experience with these rashes in P-SOC can improve clinical confidence as well as patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]