An Analysis of Workplace-Based Assessments for Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency: Does Type of Clinical Assessor Influence Level of Supervision Ratings?

PURPOSE: The authors describe use of the workplace-based assessment (WBA) coactivity scale according to entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and assessor type to examine how diverse assessors rate medical students using WBAs. METHOD: A WBA data collection system was launched at Oregon Health and Science University to visualize learner competency in various clinical settings to foster EPA assessment. WBA data from January 14 to June 18, 2021, for medical students (all years) were analyzed. The outcome variable was level of supervisor involvement in each EPA, and the independent variable was assessor type. RESULTS: A total of 7,809 WBAs were included. Most fourth-, third-, and second-year students were assessed by residents or fellows (755 [49.5%], 1,686 [48.5%], and 918 [49.9%], respectively) and first-year students by attending physicians (803 [83.0%]; P < .001). Attendings were least likely to use the highest rating of 4 (1 was available just in case; 2,148 [56.7%] vs 2,368 [67.7%] for residents; P < .001). Learners more commonly sought WBAs from attendings for EPA 2 (prioritize differential diagnosis), EPA 5 (document clinical encounter), EPA 6 (provide oral presentation), EPA 7 (form clinical questions and retrieve evidence-based medicine), and EPA 12 (perform general procedures of a physician). Residents and fellows were more likely to assess students on EPA 3 (recommend and interpret diagnostic and screening tests), EPA 4 (enter and discuss orders and prescriptions), EPA 8 (give and receive patient handover for transitions in care), EPA 9 (collaborate as member of interprofessional team), EPA 10 (recognize and manage patient in need of urgent care), and EPA 11 (obtain informed consent). CONCLUSIONS: Learners preferentially sought resident vs attending supervisors for different EPA assessments. Future research should investigate why learners seek different assessors more frequently for various EPAs and if assessor type variability in WBA levels holds true across institutions.

Leveraging existing education innovations to establish a community of practice to promote medical education scholar development.

PROBLEM: While some academic health centers have organizational structures to support educational scholarship, such as Medical Education Research Units (MERU), many education scholars may lack access to such institutional resources to support their research agenda and professional growth. APPROACH: In 2014, as part of an externally funded education grant, three faculty educators established a unique education data management system Research & Evaluation Data for Educational Improvement (REDEI). Lacking an institutional MERU, they established an educational research community of practice (CoP) using REDEI as the research dataset. The senior faculty member's effort to facilitate the group is funded by the Dean's Office. OUTCOMES: The CoP meets every 2 weeks to generate research ideas, discuss analytic approach and strategy, review analyses designed to address or explore a research question, and plans for manuscript development. Our CoP has grown from 3 to 18 members representing faculty educators, administrators, and staff across many departments in the School of Medicine. As of 2021, the REDEI system contains performance data on 1,246 students across all years of undergraduate medical education. To date, we have published 11 peer-reviewed educational research manuscripts. Five learners have served as coauthors (three medical students and two residents), three of whom were first authors. Eleven additional papers are in process. This community of practice supports productivity, provides mentorship, overcomes barriers, and is flexible enough for people to join when they can or when an area of interest is actively under development. NEXT STEPS: We are working on educational interdisciplinary research grant submission and creating collaborations with other institutions. Our focus remains on honing skills in grantsmanship, identification of impactful research questions, application of rigorous methods and instrumentation to address them, and refining process of budget development, timelines, and other planning strategies.

Effect of Clinical Variables on the Volume of Blood Collected for Blood Cultures in an Adult Patient Population.

OBJECTIVE To identify clinical variables that influence blood culture volume recovery DESIGN Retrospective chart review and linear model analysis SETTING A 621-bed Academic Medical Center with a Clinical Laboratory that processes 20,000+ blood cultures annually and dedicated phlebotomy staff for venipuncture PATIENTS Consecutive patients requiring blood culture METHODS Over a 6-day period, blood volume was determined in 568 culture bottles from 128 unique adult patients, and clinical data from the time of phlebotomy were extracted from hospital electronic medical records. Conditional hierarchical linear models with random effects for patient and phlebotomy occasion were utilized to analyze correlations between values collected from the same patient and during the same phlebotomy occasion. RESULTS Blood samples obtained from a central venous catheter yielded, on average, 2.53 mL more blood (95% CI, 1.63-3.44 mL; P<.001) than those from peripheral venipuncture, and aerobic bottles contained 0.38 mL more blood (95% CI, 0.1-0.67 mL; P=.009) than the anaerobic bottles. The remaining clinical variables (eg, hospital department, patient age, body mass index, gender, mean arterial pressure, concomitant systemic antibiotic use, and Charlson comorbidity index score) failed to reach statistical significance (P<.05) in relation to volume. CONCLUSIONS Blood cultures obtained from central venous catheters contain significantly greater volume than those obtained via peripheral venipuncture. These data highlight the clinically significant issue of low culture volume recovery, indicate that diagnostic and prognostic tools that rely on volume-dependent phenomena (ie, time to positivity) may require further validation under usual clinical practice circumstances, and suggest goals for future institutional performance improvement. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1493-1497.

Engaging Learners to Advance Medical Education.

Learners are a pillar of academic medicine, yet their voice is seldom heard in national and international scholarly conversations on medical education. However, learners are eager to contribute: in response to a recent open call from Academic Medicine, medical students and residents representing 98 institutions across 11 countries submitted 224 Letters to the Editor on wide-ranging topics. In this Invited Commentary, the authors-three medical students serving in national leadership roles-contextualize several themes discussed in these learner-authored letters.The authors first explore the unique voice learners contribute to educational innovation, highlighting the value learners add to curricular and systemic educational reform efforts. They then turn to the broader implications of the many submitted letters addressing the culture and humanism of medicine, proposing that learners can be powerful catalysts and partners in cultural change. Despite these benefits, the authors note that learners are largely untapped change agents who are particularly underrepresented in medical education scholarship, finding that students were just 2.8% (39/1,396) of authors and 3.5% (12/340) of first authors among all print publications in Academic Medicine in 2016. The authors conclude by offering tangible steps for the academic medical community to engage learners in leadership, advocacy, and scholarship.