Search

Objective RheumMadness is an online learning collaborative that seeks to actively engage the rheumatology community. The objective of this manuscript is to analyze the educational experience of RheumMadness over two years. Methods Direct measures of participant engagement were obtained using web‐based analytics. An electronic survey was created after the tournament to capture self‐reported engagement and educational experience using the Community of Inquiry framework. Data were analyzed according to the following objectives: (1) compare demographics, engagement, and educational experience of participants between 2021 and 2022; (2) describe the educational experience of those who created scouting reports; (3) explore the impact of RheumMadness on early learners (medical students and residents). Results Compared with 2021, the 2022 tournament had more participants who submitted a bracket, more early learners, and more scouting report creators. Self‐reported engagement and educational experience was high in both years of the tournament among all participants. Over 85% of scouting report creators reported that making a report was a fun and valuable learning experience. Early learners reported significantly higher levels of knowledge integration, sense of belonging in the rheumatology community, social connection, and overall learning experience compared with more advanced participants. Eighty‐five percent of early learners reported that RheumMadness increased their interest in rheumatology. Conclusion RheumMadness expanded from 2021 to 2022, engaging more participants in collaborative learning. Our results demonstrate that RheumMadness is particularly impactful among medical students and residents by helping them explore rheumatology topics and connect with the rheumatology community.

Objective Feedback from fellows‐in‐training (FITs) is important for faculty development and to enrich clinical teaching. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of traditional online evaluations and a novel compiled verbal feedback mechanism. Methods An annual feedback system was implemented in our rheumatology division in which FITs provided verbal feedback on all faculty to a facilitator who compiled, deidentified, and shared the feedback with individual faculty members. FITs also completed standard online annual evaluations of faculty. FITs and faculty completed surveys assessing the perceived effectiveness and confidentiality of each feedback mechanism. Results Thirteen of 15 eligible faculty and all 4 eligible FITs completed both surveys. Responses by FITs and faculty regarding the quality of online evaluations were generally unfavorable or neutral. Faculty responses regarding compiled verbal feedback were more favorable in all questions and significantly more favorable with respect to the feedback's ability to explain strengths (54% favorable for online evaluations vs 100% for compiled verbal feedback), the feedback's specificity (0% vs 54%), and the feedback's actionable nature (15% vs 62%). All FITs’ responses regarding quality of compiled verbal feedback were favorable. FITs had concerns regarding confidentiality with both online evaluations (0% favorable) and compiled verbal feedback (25% favorable), though FITs had less concern for future faculty interactions with compiled verbal feedback (100% favorable) than with online evaluations (0% favorable). Conclusion Compiled verbal feedback by FITs produced more actionable and effective feedback for faculty, with less concerns regarding future faculty interactions compared with traditional online evaluations. Further study of this method across different programs and institutions is warranted.