Multicenter Study of Optional In-Person Visits to Residency Programs After Virtual Interviews.

Background Compared to in-person recruitment, virtual interviewing reduces costs and promotes equity. However, many residency applicants believe that visiting programs helps inform their rank decisions. Objective We assessed the feasibility of and stakeholder opinions about optional in-person visits after virtual interviewing and program rank list finalization. Methods Six internal medicine residency programs conducted virtual recruitment in 2022-2023 and finalized their rank lists 4 weeks before the deadline. Applicants were invited for optional in-person visits after program rank list finalization. Interviewed applicants, program directors, and program administrators were given surveys that included 7-17 questions and employed "skip logic," discrete answers (eg, "yes/no/unsure" or multiple choice), and open-ended questions. Survey questions assessed stakeholders' opinions about the value, equity, and potential downsides of this recruitment process. Results Participating programs interviewed an average of 379 applicants (range 205-534) with 39 (10.3% [39 of 379], range 7.9%-12.8% [33 of 420-51 of 397]) applicants completing in-person visits. Of 1808 interviewed applicants, 464 responded to the survey (26%); 88% (407 of 464) believe a similar optional in-person visit should be offered next year, 75% (347 of 464) found this process equitable, but only 56% (258 of 464) trusted programs not to change their rank lists. Nearly all who attended an in-person visit (96.5%, 109 of 113) found it valuable. All program directors liked the optional in-person visit and believe future applicants should be offered similar in-person visits. Conclusions A large majority of participating applicants and program directors believe that in-person visits should be offered after program rank list finalization. The majority of respondents felt this recruitment process was equitable.

Predictors of faculty narrative evaluation quality in medical school clerkships.

INTRODUCTION: Narrative approaches to assessment provide meaningful and valid representations of trainee performance. Yet, narratives are frequently perceived as vague, nonspecific and low quality. To date, there is little research examining factors associated with narrative evaluation quality, particularly in undergraduate medical education. The purpose of this study was to examine associations of faculty- and student-level characteristics with the quality of faculty member's narrative evaluations of clerkship students. METHODS: The authors reviewed faculty narrative evaluations of 50 students' clinical performance in their inpatient medicine and neurology clerkships, resulting in 165 and 87 unique evaluations in the respective clerkships. The authors evaluated narrative quality using the Narrative Evaluation Quality Instrument (NEQI). The authors used linear mixed effects modelling to predict total NEQI score. Explanatory covariates included the following: time to evaluation completion, number of weeks spent with student, faculty total weeks on service per year, total faculty years in clinical education, student gender, faculty gender, and an interaction term between student and faculty gender. RESULTS: Significantly higher narrative evaluation quality was associated with a shorter time to evaluation completion, with NEQI scores decreasing by approximately 0.3 points every 10 days following students' rotations (p = .004). Additionally, women faculty had statistically higher quality narrative evaluations with NEQI scores 1.92 points greater than men faculty (p = .012). All other covariates were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of faculty members' narrative evaluations of medical students was associated with time to evaluation completion and faculty gender but not faculty experience in clinical education, faculty weeks on service, or the amount of time spent with students. Findings advance understanding on ways to improve the quality of narrative evaluations which are imperative given assessment models that will increase the volume and reliance on narratives.

Incorporating Medical Student Documentation Into the Billable Encounter: A Pragmatic Approach to Implementation of the 2018 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Rule Revision.

In early 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released the Medical Review of Evaluation and Management (E/M) Documentation, which allows supervising teaching physicians to rely on a medical student's documentation to support billing for E/M services. This change has potential to enhance education, clinical documentation quality, and the satisfaction of students, postgraduate trainees, and teaching physicians. However, its practical adoption presents many challenges that must be navigated successfully to realize these important goals in compliance with federal and local requirements, while avoiding unintended downstream problems. Implementation requires careful planning, policy creation, education, and monitoring, all with collaboration between institutional leaders, compliance and information technology professionals, educators, and learners. In this paper, we review the 2018 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule change, address common questions and potential impacts, outline practical workflows to meet the supervision requirement, and discuss steps for successful implementation.