Our House Won't Rebuild Itself: Peace, Love, and Hope as Tools to Transform Graduate Medical Education.

ABSTRACT: Graduate medical education (GME), the period of specialty and subspecialty training following attainment of a medical degree, is the final step in a continuum of medical education culminating in independent physician practice. This manuscript uses the metaphor "our house" to describe all aspects of the GME environment in which health care professionals and trainees learn and work. Our house's inhabitants have unequivocally stated that our house is in a state of disrepair. While physicians-in-training inevitably face challenges on their journey to independent practice, those from historically marginalized backgrounds face these challenges compounded by the disproportionate impact of identity-based harms. The authors use critical and liberatory theories to explore dominant power dynamics in GME, classifying identity-based harms as silence, pain, and despair. To strive for true transformation, the authors advocate for a new set of house rules, a different way of co-existing based on the principles of liberatory design. The authors call on readers to rebuild the house of GME by drawing parallels between the foundational human values of peace, love, and hope and the educational principles of psychological safety, identity safety, and belonging. To transform GME, our community must make space in our house for all individuals to join, and indeed, to rebuild together.

Medical Student Burnout by Race, Ethnicity, and Multiple Disability Status.

This cohort study examines the prevalence of burnout among students underrepresented in medicine by race and ethnicity with multiple disability types.

'Yourself in all your forms': A grounded theory exploration of identity safety in medical students.

INTRODUCTION: Identity threats, such as stereotype threat and microaggressions, impair learning and erode well-being. In contrast to identity threat, less is known about how learners experience feelings of safety regarding their identity. This exploratory study aims to develop a theory of identity safety in the clinical learning environment. METHODS: This multi-institutional, qualitative interview study was informed by constructivist grounded theory and critical pedagogy. Participants were clinical students at three public medical schools in the United States in 2022. Investigators purposively sampled participants for interviews based on their responses to an 11-item survey with an open-ended question soliciting students' personal identities and responses to both the racial/ethnic and gender Stereotype Vulnerability Scales. The investigators interviewed, coded, constantly compared and continued sampling until the codes could be developed into categories, then concepts and finally into a theory. The team engaged in critical reflexivity throughout the analytic process to enrich data interpretations. RESULTS: Sixteen diverse students were interviewed. We organised their identity-salient experiences into identity threat, threat mitigation and identity safety. Participants experienced identity threat through unwelcoming learning environments, feeling compelled to change their behaviour in inauthentic ways or sociopolitical threat. Threat mitigation occurred when a participant or supervisor intervened against an identity threat, dampening but not eliminating the threat impact. Participants characterised identity safety as the ability to exist as their authentic selves without feeling the need to monitor how others perceive their identities. Identity safety manifested when participants demonstrated agency to leverage their identities for patient care, when others upheld their personhood and saw them as unique individuals and when they felt they belonged in the learning environment. DISCUSSION: Attending to identity safety may lead to educational practices that sustain and leverage team members' diverse identities. Identity safety and threat mitigation may work together to combat identity threats in the learning environment.

Stereotype Threat and Gender Bias in Internal Medicine Residency: It is Still Hard to be in Charge.

BACKGROUND: Despite similar numbers of women and men in internal medicine (IM) residency, women face unique challenges. Stereotype threat is hypothesized to contribute to underrepresentation of women in academic leadership, and exploring how it manifests in residency may provide insight into forces that perpetuate gender disparities. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the prevalence of stereotype threat in IM residency and explore experiences contributing to that stereotype threat. DESIGN: We used a mixed methods study design. First, we surveyed IM residents using the Stereotype Vulnerability Scale (SVS) to screen for stereotype threat. Second, we conducted focus groups with women who scored high on the SVS to understand experiences that led to stereotype threat. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to all IM residents at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in September-November 2019. Focus groups were conducted at UCSF in Spring 2020. APPROACH: The survey included an adapted version of the SVS. For focus groups, we developed a focus group guide informed by literature on stereotype threat. We used a thematic approach to data analysis. The mixed methods design enabled us to draw metainferences by integrating the two data sources. KEY RESULTS: Survey response rate was 61% (110/181). Women were significantly more likely than men to have a score indicating stereotype threat vulnerability (77% vs 0%, p < 0.001). Four themes from focus groups characterized women's experiences of gender bias and stereotype threat: gender norm tension, microaggressions and sexual harassment, authority questioned, and support and allyship. CONCLUSIONS: Gender-based stereotype threat is highly prevalent among women IM residents. This phenomenon poses a threat to confidence and ability to execute patient care responsibilities, detracting from well-being and professional development. These findings indicate that, despite robust representation of women in IM training, further attention is needed to address gendered experiences and contributors to women's vulnerability to stereotype threat.

The Next Era of Assessment: Can Ensuring High-Quality, Equitable Patient Care Be the Defining Characteristic?

ABSTRACT: Previous eras of assessment in medical education have been defined by how assessment is done, from knowledge exams popularized in the 1960s to the emergence of work-based assessment in the 1990s to current efforts to integrate multiple types and sources of performance data through programmatic assessment. Each of these eras was a response to why assessment was performed (e.g., assessing medical knowledge with exams; assessing communication, professionalism, and systems competencies with work-based assessment). Despite the evolution of assessment eras, current evidence highlights the graduation of trainees with foundational gaps in the ability to provide high-quality care to patients presenting with common problems, and training program leaders report they graduate trainees they would not trust to care for themselves or their loved ones. In this article, the authors argue that the next era of assessment should be defined by why assessment is done: to ensure high-quality, equitable care. Assessment should place focus on demanding graduates possess the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and adaptive expertise to meet the needs of all patients and ensuring that graduates are able to do this in an equitable fashion. The authors explore 2 patient-focused assessment approaches that could help realize the promise of this envisioned era: entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and resident sensitive quality measures (RSQMs)/TRainee Attributable and Automatable Care Evaluations in Real-time (TRACERs). These examples illustrate how the envisioned next era of assessment can leverage existing and new data to provide precision education assessment that focuses on providing formative and summative feedback to trainees in a manner that seeks to ensure their learning outcomes prepare them to ensure high-quality, equitable patient outcomes.

It is Challenging to Shift the Norm: Exploring how to Anticipate and Address Microaggressions in Clinical Learning Environments.

Purpose: Increased attention to improving a culture of belonging in clinical learning environments has led to various approaches to addressing microaggressions. However, most approaches in the literature focus on responding or reacting to microaggressions with insufficient attention to building trust before microaggressions might occur. Research on microaggressions in clinical learning environments suggests anticipatory or pre-emptive conversations about microaggressions may foster greater trust. In this study, the authors explored how diverse participants perceived the experience of anticipatory conversations about potential microaggressions. Overall, the authors sought to gain a deeper understanding of how pre-emptive and anticipatory conversations may influence an organization's approach to addressing microaggressions in clinical learning environments. Methods: The authors utilized constructivist grounded theory methodology and conducted individual qualitative interviews with 21 participants in an academic department within a larger health sciences center in the United States. Results: Findings suggest that anticipatory conversations about microaggressions were challenging due to existing norms in dynamic clinical learning and working environments. Participants shared that the idea of anticipating microaggressions elicited dissonance. Conversations about microaggressions could potentially be facilitated through leaders who role model vulnerability, organizational supports, and an individualized approach for each team member and their role within a complex hierarchical organization. Discussion: Anticipating and addressing microaggressions in clinical learning environments holds tremendous potential, however, any conversations about personal identity remain challenging in medical and healthcare environments. This study suggests that any attempts to address microaggressions requires attention to cultural norms within healthcare environments and the ways that hierarchical organizations can constrain individual agency.

The Problem and Power of Professionalism: A Critical Analysis of Medical Students' and Residents' Perspectives and Experiences of Professionalism.

PURPOSE: Professionalism has historically been viewed as an honorable code to define core values and behaviors of physicians, but there are growing concerns that professionalism serves to control people who do not align with the majority culture of medicine. This study explored how learners, particularly those from historically marginalized groups, view the purpose of professionalism and how they experience professionalism as both an oppressive and valuable force. METHOD: The authors conducted a qualitative study with a critical orientation. In 2021 and 2022, they interviewed fourth-year medical students and senior residents at 3 institutions about their perceptions and experiences of professionalism. After cataloguing participants' stories, the authors combined critical theory with narrative and thematic analysis to identify mechanisms by which professionalism empowered or disempowered individuals or groups based on identities. RESULTS: Forty-nine trainees (31 medical students and 18 senior residents from multiple specialties) participated in interviews; 17 identified as a race/ethnicity underrepresented in medicine and 15 as people of color not underrepresented in medicine. Their stories, especially those of participants underrepresented in medicine, identified professionalism as an oppressive, homogenizing force that sometimes encoded racism through various mechanisms. These mechanisms included conflating differences with unprofessionalism, enforcing double standards of professionalism, and creating institutional policies that regulated appearance or hindered advocacy. Participants described deleterious consequences of professionalism on their learning and mental health. However, participants also described useful aspects of professionalism as a means of advocating for marginalized groups. Additionally, participants described how they reconceived professionalism to include their own identities and values. CONCLUSIONS: Trainees, especially those from historically marginalized groups, experience professionalism as a restrictive, assimilative force while also finding value in and constructive adaptations for professionalism. Understanding both the destructive and empowering aspects of professionalism on individual and institutional levels can help improve the framing of professionalism in medical education.

From Eggshells to Action: A Qualitative Study of Faculty Experience Responding to Microaggressions Targeting Medical Students.

PURPOSE: Microaggressions targeting clinical learners cause harm and threaten learning. Clinical supervisors can be powerful allies by intervening when microaggressions occur. This study explored general and student-nominated skilled supervisors' perspectives on responding to microaggressions targeting clinical learners. METHOD: This single-institution, qualitative study within a constructivist paradigm explored faculty supervisor experiences with bystander response to microaggressions targeting learners. Clinical supervisors in medicine and surgery departments and those across departments nominated by students as skilled microaggression responders were invited to discuss microaggression scenarios targeting students in semistructured focus groups in the U.S. in 2020-2021. Investigators applied the framework method of thematic analysis to identify themes. RESULTS: Forty-two faculty (31 medicine and surgery ["general"], 11 "student-nominated" as skilled responders) joined 10 focus groups (6 "general," 3 "student-nominated," 1 mixed). Four themes characterized experiences responding to microaggressions targeting learners: bystander goals, noticing, acting, and continuous learning. Participants' response goals were protecting learners, safeguarding learning, and teaching microaggression response skills. Noticing was influenced by past experiences with microaggressions and acculturation to clinical environments. Bystander action stemmed from (1) microaggression type, (2) personal emotional vulnerability, (3) knowledge of student preferences for supervisor response, and (4) clinical and educational context. Bystander action was more common when participants regarded all microaggressions as harmful, understood student preferences for faculty response, expected to err (growth mindset), and framed microaggressions as opportunities for humble reflection, intellectual candor, and teaching. Microaggression response required continuous learning through informal and formal skills development. CONCLUSIONS: Complex factors govern faculty bystander response to microaggressions targeting clinical learners. Efforts to strengthen faculty bystander response should incorporate skill-building around preemptive discussions with learners and using intellectual candor to promote psychological safety, learning, and bystander action. Additional investigation is needed on how to incorporate these skills into team workflows and to assess outcomes of specific response strategies.

Editors as Gatekeepers: One Medical Education Journal's Efforts to Resist Racism in Scholarly Publishing.

PURPOSE: Journals have begun to expand the racial diversity of editors as a first step to countering institutional racism. Given the power editors hold as gatekeepers, a diverse team helps ensure that minoritized scholars have equal opportunity to contribute. In 2021, Teaching and Learning in Medicine ( TLM ) created an editorial internship for racially minoritized individuals. This study examines the first 6 months of this program to better understand its creation and initial successes. METHOD: The authors employed critical collaborative autoethnography, a qualitative methodology, focusing on the underlying assumptions around power and hierarchy that are implicit in the design and implementation of the TLM internship. Participants included 13 TLM editorial board members (10 internship selection committee members, 3 mentors, 2 independent researchers), 3 external selection committee members, and 3 interns, with some holding multiple roles. Ten participants served as authors of this report. Data included archival emails, planning documents, and focus groups. The initial analysis explored what happened and how and was followed by a thematic analysis in which participants reflected on their responsibility for implementing an antiracist program. RESULTS: While the program developed interns' editorial skills, which they greatly valued, and diversified the TLM editorial board, it did not achieve the goal of fostering antiracism. Mentors focused on conducting joint peer reviews with interns, assuming that racial experiences can and should be separate from the editorial process, thus working within, rather than trying to change, the existing racist system. CONCLUSIONS: Given these findings, greater structural change is needed to disrupt the existing racist system. These experiences underscore the importance of recognizing the harmful impact a race-neutral lens can have on antiracist efforts. Moving forward, TLM will implement lessons learned ahead of offering the internship again with the goal of creating the transformative change intended with the creation of the program.

"My Assessments Are Biased!" Measurement and Sociocultural Approaches to Achieve Fairness in Assessment in Medical Education.

Assessing learners is foundational to their training and developmental growth throughout the medical education continuum. However, growing evidence shows the prevalence and impact of harmful bias in assessments in medical education, accelerating the urgency to identify solutions. Assessment bias presents a critical problem for all stages of learning and the broader educational system. Bias poses significant challenges to learners, disrupts the learning environment, and threatens the pathway and transition of learners into health professionals. While the topic of assessment bias has been examined within the context of measurement literature, limited guidance and solutions exist for learners in medical education, particularly in the clinical environment. This article presents an overview of assessment bias, focusing on clinical learners. A definition of bias and its manifestations in assessments are presented. Consequences of assessment bias are discussed within the contexts of validity and fairness and their impact on learners, patients/caregivers, and the broader field of medicine. Messick's unified validity framework is used to contextualize assessment bias; in addition, perspectives from sociocultural contexts are incorporated into the discussion to elaborate the nuanced implications in the clinical training environment. Discussions of these topics are conceptualized within the literature and the interventions used to date. The article concludes with practical recommendations to overcome bias and to develop an ideal assessment system. Recommendations address articulating values to guide assessment, designing assessment to foster learning and outcomes, attending to assessment procedures, promoting continuous quality improvement of assessment, and fostering equitable learning and assessment environments.

Opportunities and challenges in discussing racism during primary care visits.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how patients and primary care practitioners (PCPs) discuss racism and their perspectives on having these conversations during primary care visits. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: We conducted semi-structured interviews from September 2020-March 2021 at a Federally Qualified Health Center in the San Francisco Bay Area. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an inductive qualitative descriptive pilot study using one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with 5 members of a Patient Advisory Council and 10 internal medicine PCPs. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Interviews were conducted via video conferencing, recorded, and transcribed. An iterative analytic process was used to thematically assess participants' experiences and perspectives and identify key themes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patients and PCPs identified benefits from engaging in conversations about racism during primary care visits and noted challenges and concerns. Patients and PCPs highlighted strategies to advance communication about racism in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating conversations about racism with patients in primary care can be meaningful, but also has risks. More research is needed for deeper exploration of patients' perspectives and development of trainings. Improving how PCPs communicate with patients about racism represents an opportunity to advance antiracism in medicine and improve health outcomes for individuals who have historically been poorly served by our health care system.

Moving toward Mastery: Changes in Student Perceptions of Clerkship Assessment with Pass/Fail Grading and Enhanced Feedback.

ProblemClerkship grades contribute to a summative assessment culture in clerkships and can therefore interfere with students' learning. For example, by focusing on summative, tiered clerkship grades, students often discount accompanying feedback that could inform future learning. This case report seeks to explore whether an assessment system intervention which eliminated tiered grades and enhanced feedback was associated with changes in student perceptions of clerkship assessment and perceptions of the clinical learning environment. Intervention: In January 2019, our institution eliminated tiered clerkship grading (honors/pass/fail) for medical students during the core clerkship year and implemented pass/fail clerkship grading along with required twice weekly, work-based assessments for formative feedback. Context: In this single institution, cross-sectional survey study, we collected data from fourth-year medical students one year after an assessment system intervention. The intervention entailed changing from honors/pass/fail to pass/fail grading in all eight core clerkships and implementing an electronic system to record twice-weekly real-time formative work-based assessments. The survey queried student perceptions on the fairness and accuracy of grading and the clinical learning environment-including whether clerkships were mastery- or performance-oriented. We compared responses from students one year after the assessment intervention to those from the class one year before the intervention. Comparisons were made using unpaired, two-tailed t-tests or chi-squared tests as appropriate with Cohen's d for effect size estimation for score differences. Content analysis was used to analyze responses from two open-ended questions about feedback and grading. Impact: Survey response rates were similar before and after intervention (76% (127/168) vs. 72% (118/163), respectively) with no between-group differences in demographics. The after-intervention group showed statistically significant increases in the following factors: "grades are transparent and fair" (Cohen's d = 0.80), "students receive useful feedback" (d = 0.51), and "resident evaluation procedures are fair" (d = 0.40). After-intervention respondents perceived the clerkship learning environment to be more mastery-oriented (d = 0.52), less performance approach-oriented (d = 0.63), and less performance avoid-oriented (d = 0.49). There were no statistical differences in the factors "attending evaluation procedures are fair," "evaluations are accurate," "evaluations are biased," or "perception of stereotype threat." Open-ended questions revealed student recommendations to improve clerkship summary narratives, burden of work-based assessment, and in-person feedback. Lessons Learned: After an assessment system change to pass/fail grading with work-based assessments, we observed moderate to large improvements in student perceptions of clerkship grading and the mastery orientation of the learning environment. Our intervention did not improve perceptions around bias in assessment in clerkships. Other medical schools may consider similar interventions to begin to address student concerns with clerkship assessment and promote a more adaptive learning environment.

No One Size Fits All: A Qualitative Study of Clerkship Medical Students' Perceptions of Ideal Supervisor Responses to Microaggressions.

PURPOSE: This study explores medical students' perspectives on the key features of ideal supervisor responses to microaggressions targeting clerkship medical students. METHOD: This single-institution, qualitative focus group study, based in an interpretivist paradigm, explored clerkship medical students' perceptions in the United States, 2020. During semistructured focus groups, participants discussed 4 microaggression scenarios. The authors employed the framework method of thematic analysis to identify considerations and characteristics of ideal supervisor responses and explored differences in ideal response across microaggression types. RESULTS: Thirty-nine students participated in 7 focus groups, lasting 80 to 92 minutes per group. Overall, students felt that supervisors' responsibility began before a microaggression occurred, through anticipatory discussions ("pre-brief") with all students to identify preferences. Students felt that effective bystander responses should acknowledge student preferences, patient context, interpersonal dynamics in the room, and the microaggression itself. Microassaults necessitated an immediate response. After a microaggression, students preferred a brief one-on-one check-in with the supervisor to discuss the most supportive next steps including whether further group discussion would be helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Students described that an ideal supervisor bystander response incorporates both student preferences and the microaggression context, which are best revealed through advanced discussion. The authors created the Bystander Microaggression Intervention Guide as a visual representation of the preferred bystander microaggression response based on students' discussions. Effective interventions promote educational safety and shift power dynamics to empower the student target.

They Don't See a Lot of People My Color: A Mixed Methods Study of Racial/Ethnic Stereotype Threat Among Medical Students on Core Clerkships.

PURPOSE: Stereotype threat is an important psychological phenomenon in which fear of fulfilling negative stereotypes about one's group impairs performance. The effects of stereotype threat in medical education are poorly characterized. This study examined the prevalence of racial/ethnic stereotype threat amongst fourth-year medical students and explored its impact on students' clinical experience. METHOD: This was an explanatory sequential mixed methods study at 2 institutions in 2019. First, the authors administered the quantitative Stereotype Vulnerability Scale (SVS) to fourth-year medical students. The authors then conducted semistructured interviews among a purposive sample of students with high SVS scores, using a qualitative phenomenographic approach to analyze experiences of stereotype threat. The research team considered reflexivity through group discussion and journaling. RESULTS: Overall, 52% (184/353) of students responded to the survey. Collectively, 28% of students had high vulnerability to stereotype threat: 82% of Black, 45% of Asian, 43% of Latinx, and 4% of White students. Eighteen students participated in interviews. Stereotype threat was a dynamic, 3-stage process triggered when students experienced the workplace through the colored lens of race/ethnicity by standing out, reliving past experiences, and witnessing microaggressions. Next, students engaged in internal dialogue to navigate racially charged events and workplace power dynamics. These efforts depleted cognitive resources and interfered with learning. Finally, students responded and coped to withstand threats. Immediate and deferred interventions from allies reduced stereotype threat. CONCLUSIONS: Stereotype threat is common, particularly among non-White students, and interferes with learning. Increased minority representation and developing evidence-based strategies for allyship around microaggressions could mitigate effects of stereotype threat.

In Pursuit of Honors: A Multi-Institutional Study of Students' Perceptions of Clerkship Evaluation and Grading.

PURPOSE: To examine medical students' perceptions of the fairness and accuracy of core clerkship assessment, the clerkship learning environment, and contributors to students' achievement. METHOD: Fourth-year medical students at 6 institutions completed a survey in 2018 assessing perceptions of the fairness and accuracy of clerkship evaluation and grading, the learning environment including clerkship goal structures (mastery- or performance-oriented), racial/ethnic stereotype threat, and student performance (honors earned). Factor analysis of 5-point Likert items (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) provided scale scores of perceptions. Using multivariable regression, investigators examined predictors of honors earned. Qualitative content analysis of responses to an open-ended question yielded students' recommendations to improve clerkship grading. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 71.1% (666/937). Students believed that being liked and particular supervisors most influenced final grades. Only 44.4% agreed that grading was fair. Students felt the clerkship learning environment promoted both mastery and performance avoidance behaviors (88.0% and 85.6%, respectively). Students from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine were more likely to experience stereotype threat vulnerability (55.7% vs 10.9%, P < .0005). Honors earned was positively associated with perceived accuracy of grading and interest in competitive specialties while negatively associated with stereotype threat. Students recommended strategies to improve clerkship grading: eliminating honors, training evaluators, and rewarding improvement on clerkships. CONCLUSIONS: Participants had concerns around the fairness and accuracy of clerkship evaluation and grading and potential bias. Students expressed a need to redefine the culture of assessment on core clerkships to create more favorable learning environments for all students.

Siderophore-mediated cargo delivery to the cytoplasm of Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: syntheses of monofunctionalized enterobactin scaffolds and evaluation of enterobactin-cargo conjugate uptake.

The design and syntheses of monofunctionalized enterobactin (Ent, L- and D-isomers) scaffolds where one catecholate moiety of enterobactin houses an alkene, aldehyde, or carboxylic acid at the C5 position are described. These molecules are key precursors to a family of 10 enterobactin-cargo conjugates presented in this work, which were designed to probe the extent to which the Gram-negative ferric enterobactin uptake and processing machinery recognizes, transports, and utilizes derivatized enterobactin scaffolds. A series of growth recovery assays employing enterobactin-deficient E. coli ATCC 33475 (ent-) revealed that six conjugates based on L-Ent having relatively small cargos promoted E. coli growth under iron-limiting conditions whereas negligible-to-no growth recovery was observed for four conjugates with relatively large cargos. No growth recovery was observed for the enterobactin receptor-deficient strain of E. coli H1187 (fepA-) or the enterobactin esterase-deficient derivative of E. coli K-12 JW0576 (fes-), or when the D-isomer of enterobactin was employed. These results demonstrate that the E. coli ferric enterobactin transport machinery identifies and delivers select cargo-modified scaffolds to the E. coli cytoplasm. Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 K648 (pvd-, pch-) exhibited greater promiscuity than that of E. coli for the uptake and utilization of the enterobactin-cargo conjugates, and growth promotion was observed for eight conjugates under iron-limiting conditions. Enterobactin may be utilized for delivering molecular cargos via its transport machinery to the cytoplasm of E. coli and P. aeruginosa thereby providing a means to overcome the Gram-negative outer membrane permeability barrier.