Associations between teaching effectiveness and participant self-reflection in continuing medical education.

Effective medical educators can engage learners through self-reflection. However, little is known about the relationships between teaching effectiveness and self-reflection in continuing medical education (CME). We aimed to determine associations between presenter teaching effectiveness and participant self-reflection in conference-based CME. This cross-sectional study evaluated presenters and participants at a national CME course. Participants provided CME teaching effectiveness (CMETE) ratings and self-reflection scores for each presentation. Overall CMETE and CME self-reflection scores (five-point Likert scale with one as strongly disagree and five as strongly agree) were averaged for each presentation. Correlations were measured among self-reflection, CMETE, and presentation characteristics. In total, 624 participants returned 430 evaluations (response, 68.9%) for the 38 presentations. Correlation between CMETE and self-reflection was medium (Pearson correlation, 0.3-0.5) or large (0.5-1.0) for most presentations (n = 33, 86.9%). Higher mean (SD) CME reflection scores were associated with clinical cases (3.66 [0.12] vs. 3.48 [0.14]; p = 0.003) and audience response (3.66 [0.12] vs. 3.51 [0.14]; p = 0.005). To our knowledge, this is the first study to show a relationship between teaching effectiveness and participant self-reflection in conference-based CME. Presenters should consider using clinical cases and audience response systems to increase teaching effectiveness and promote self-reflection among CME learners.

Comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of compression modalities for the promotion of venous ulcer healing and reducing ulcer recurrence.

OBJECTIVE: This was a systematic review of the literature to determine which compression method is superior in promoting ulcer healing and reducing recurrence in patients with lower extremity venous ulcer disease. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases for randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies from 1990 to December 2013. RESULTS: We identified 36 studies and two Cochrane systematic reviews. Many studies had moderate risk of bias. We found no overall difference between compression stockings vs compression bandages with respect to ulcer healing, time to ulcer healing, or ulcer recurrence outcomes. When we compared stockings vs short stretch bandages, stockings were superior with respect to ulcer healing. However, stockings compared with four-layer systems showed no difference in ulcer healing outcomes. When four-layer systems were compared with compression with less than four layers, there was also no significant difference in ulcer healing outcomes. Similarly, short stretch bandages were not superior to long stretch bandages with respect to ulcer healing, time to ulcer healing, or ulcer recurrence. One Cochrane review presented many additional comparisons and reported increased wound healing with compression compared with no compression, with multicomponent systems over single component systems, and compression systems with an elastic component over no elastic component. Another Cochrane review demonstrated a reduction in recurrence with compression in patients with healed ulcers. CONCLUSIONS: At least moderate-quality evidence supports compression over no compression, multicomponent systems over single component systems, and systems with an elastic component over those without. We did not find significant differences with respect to ulcer healing outcomes for other comparisons. Low-quality evidence supports the effect of compression on ulcer recurrence.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical interventions versus conservative therapy for venous ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: This goal of this study was to systematically review the literature to determine if surgical intervention (open or endovascular) is superior to compression alone with respect to ulcer healing, ulcer recurrence, and time to ulcer healing in patients with lower extremity venous ulcer disease. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies from 1990 to December 2013. The interventions of interest were any open or endovascular surgical interventions on the venous system in the lower extremity compared with compression alone. RESULTS: We included 11 studies (seven RCTs and four observational studies) with moderate to increased risk of bias. The meta-analysis of all studies demonstrated increased healing rate (pooled risk ratio [RR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.13; I(2) = 10%) and lower risk of recurrence (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.85; I(2) = 27%) with open surgical procedures compared with compression. However, the meta-analysis of only RCTs showed no difference, possibly due to imprecision. The meta-analysis of three RCTs showed no difference in time to ulcer healing, -0.41 (95% CI, -0.89 to 0.07). Two studies of endovascular surgical procedures compared with compression showed no significant difference in ulcer healing (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.43-6.32). One study of open surgical venous ligation and stripping compared with endovenous laser also showed no significant difference in ulcer recurrence (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.21-3.27). CONCLUSIONS: Open surgical interventions may improve lower extremity venous ulcer healing. The quality of this evidence is low because the analysis was dominated by the results of observational studies. The current evidence does not definitively support the superiority of endovascular surgical interventions compared with compression alone.

Preoperative testing before noncardiac surgery: guidelines and recommendations.

Preoperative testing (e.g., chest radiography, electrocardiography, laboratory testing, urinalysis) is often performed before surgical procedures. These investigations can be helpful to stratify risk, direct anesthetic choices, and guide postoperative management, but often are obtained because of protocol rather than medical necessity. The decision to order preoperative tests should be guided by the patient's clinical history, comorbidities, and physical examination findings. Patients with signs or symptoms of active cardiovascular disease should be evaluated with appropriate testing, regardless of their preoperative status. Electrocardiography is recommended for patients undergoing high-risk surgery and those undergoing intermediate-risk surgery who have additional risk factors. Patients undergoing low-risk surgery do not require electrocardiography. Chest radiography is reasonable for patients at risk of postoperative pulmonary complications if the results would change perioperative management. Preoperative urinalysis is recommended for patients undergoing invasive urologic procedures and those undergoing implantation of foreign material. Electrolyte and creatinine testing should be performed in patients with underlying chronic disease and those taking medications that predispose them to electrolyte abnormalities or renal failure. Random glucose testing should be performed in patients at high risk of undiagnosed diabetes mellitus. In patients with diagnosed diabetes, A1C testing is recommended only if the result would change perioperative management. A complete blood count is indicated for patients with diseases that increase the risk of anemia or patients in whom significant perioperative blood loss is anticipated. Coagulation studies are reserved for patients with a history of bleeding or medical conditions that predispose them to bleeding, and for those taking anticoagulants. Patients in their usual state of health who are undergoing cataract surgery do not require preoperative testing.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2022.

It can be difficult for clinicians to stay updated on practice-changing articles.  Synthesis of relevant articles and guideline updates can facilitate staying informed on important new data impacting clinical practice.  The titles and abstracts from the 7 general internal medicine outpatient journals with highest impact factors and relevance were reviewed by 8 internal medicine physicians. Coronavirus disease 2019 research was excluded.  The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, The British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine, and Public Library of Science Medicine were reviewed. Additionally, article synopsis collections and databases were reviewed: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on clinical relevance to outpatient internal medicine, potential impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Article qualities and importance were debated until consensus was reached. Clusters of articles pertinent to the same topic were considered together. In total, 5 practice-changing articles were included, along with a highlight of key guideline updates.

Practice Changing Updates in Perioperative Medicine Literature 2022. A Systematic Review.

Perioperative medicine is a rapidly growing multidisciplinary field with significant advances published each year. In this review, we highlight important perioperative publications in 2022. A multi-database literature search from January to December of 2022 was undertaken. Original research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and guidelines were included. Abstracts, case reports, letters, protocols, pediatric and obstetric articles, and cardiac surgery literature were excluded. Two authors reviewed each reference using the Distiller SR systematic review software (Evidence Partners Inc., Ottawa, Ont, Canada). A modified Delphi technique was used to identify 8 practice-changing articles. We identified another 10 articles for tabular summaries. We highlight why these articles have the potential to change clinical perioperative practice and areas where more information is needed.

Improving participant feedback to continuing medical education presenters in internal medicine: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Feedback is essential for improving the skills of continuing medical education (CME) presenters. However, there has been little research on improving the quality of feedback to CME presenters. OBJECTIVES: To validate an instrument for generating balanced and behavior-specific feedback from a national cross-section of participants to presenters at a large internal medicine CME course. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, randomized validation study with qualitative data analysis that included all 317 participants at a Mayo Clinic internal medicine CME course in 2009. MEASUREMENTS: An 8-item (5-point Likert scales) CME faculty assessment enhanced study form (ESF) was designed based on literature and expert review. Course participants were randomized to a standard form, a generic study form (GSF), or the ESF. The dimensionality of instrument scores was determined using factor analysis to account for clustered data. Internal consistency and interrater reliabilities were calculated. Associations between overall feedback scores and presenter and presentation variables were identified using generalized estimating equations to account for multiple observations within talk and speaker combinations. Two raters reached consensus on qualitative themes and independently analyzed narrative entries for evidence of balanced and behavior-specific comments. RESULTS: Factor analysis of 5,241 evaluations revealed a uni-dimensional model for measuring CME presenter feedback. Overall internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = 0.94) and internal consistency reliability (ICC range 0.88-0.95) were excellent. Feedback scores were associated with presenters' academic ranks (mean score): Instructor (4.12), Assistant Professor (4.38), Associate Professor (4.56), Professor (4.70) (p = 0.046). Qualitative analysis revealed that the ESF generated the highest numbers of balanced comments (GSF = 11, ESF = 26; p = 0.01) and behavior-specific comments (GSF = 64, ESF = 104; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We describe a practical and validated method for generating balanced and behavior-specific feedback for CME presenters in internal medicine. Our simple method for prompting course participants to give balanced and behavior-specific comments may ultimately provide CME presenters with feedback for improving their presentations.

Practice-Changing Updates in Perioperative Medicine Literature 2020-2021: A Systematic Review.

Recent literature published in a variety of multidisciplinary journals has significantly influenced perioperative patient care. Distilling and synthesizing the clinically important literature can be challenging. This review summarizes practice-changing articles in perioperative medicine from the years 2020 and 2021. Embase, Ovid, and EBM reviews databases were queried from January 2020 to December 2021. Inclusion criteria were original research, systematic review, meta-analysis, and important guidelines. Exclusion criteria were conference abstracts, case reports, letters, protocols, pediatric and obstetric articles, and cardiac surgery literature. Two authors reviewed each reference using the Distiller SR systematic review software (Evidence Partners Inc., Ottawa, Ont., Canada). A modified Delphi technique was used to identify 9 practice-changing articles. We identified another 13 articles for tabular summaries, as they were relevant to an internist's perioperative evaluation of a patient. Articles were selected to highlight the clinical implications of new evidence in each field. We have also pointed out limitations of each study and clinical populations where they are not applicable.

Preoperative Management of Medications for Neurologic Diseases: Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement Consensus Statement.

Neurologic diseases are prevalent in patients undergoing invasive procedures; yet, no societal guidelines exist as to best practice in management of perioperative medications prescribed to treat these disorders. The Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement tasked experts in internal medicine, anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, and neurology to provide evidence-based recommendations for preoperative management of these medications. The aim of this review is not only to provide consensus recommendations for preoperative management of patients on medications for neurologic disorders, but also to serve as an educational guide to perioperative clinicians. While, in general, medications for neurologic disorders should be continued preoperatively, an individualized approach may be needed in certain situations (eg, holding anticonvulsants on day of surgery if electroencephalographic mapping is planned during epilepsy surgery). Pertinent interactions with commonly used drugs in anesthesia practice, as well as considerations for targeted laboratory testing or perioperative drug substitutions, are addressed as well.

Preoperative Management of Medications for Psychiatric Diseases: Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement Consensus Statement.

There is a lack of guidelines for preoperative management of psychiatric medications leading to variation in care and the potential for perioperative complications and surgical procedure cancellations on the day of surgery. The Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement identified preoperative psychiatric medication management as an area in which consensus could improve patient care. The aim of this consensus statement is to provide recommendations to clinicians regarding preoperative psychiatric medication management. Several categories of drugs were identified including antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, antipsychotics, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medications. Literature searches and review of primary and secondary data sources were performed for each medication/medication class. We used a modified Delphi process to develop consensus recommendations for preoperative management of individual medications in each of these drug categories. While most medications should be continued perioperatively to avoid risk of relapse of the psychiatric condition, adjustments may need to be made on a case-by-case basis for certain drugs.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2021.

It can be challenging to identify new evidence that may shift clinical practice within internal medicine. Synthesis of relevant articles and guideline updates can facilitate staying informed of these changes. The titles and abstracts from the 7 general internal medicine outpatient journals with highest impact factors and relevance were reviewed by 8 internal medicine physicians. Coronavirus disease 2019 research was excluded. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The British Medical Journal (BMJ), Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine, and Public Library of Science Medicine were reviewed. Additionally, article synopsis collections and databases were reviewed: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on clinical relevance to outpatient internal medicine, potential impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Article qualities and importance were debated until consensus was reached. Clusters of articles pertinent to the same topic were considered together. In total, 8 practice-changing articles were included.

Experiences of Gender Inequity Among Women Physicians Across Career Stages: Findings from Participant Focus Groups.

Background and Purpose: Gender inequity in academic medicine persists despite efforts to the contrary. Even with increasing representation of women physicians in academic medicine, leadership positions and promotion to tenure are still not representative. This study describes the experiences of women physicians at various stages of their careers, uncovering current challenges and potential areas for improvement toward gender equity. Methods: Three focus groups were conducted (n = 28) as part of a national professional development conference: Growth, Resilience, Inspiration, and Tenacity (GRIT) for Women in Medicine: GRIT. We thematically analyzed participant responses to assess perspectives on the impact of experiences, barriers to professional growth, opportunities for improvement, and definitions of success. Results: The major issues the participants faced included subthemes of (1) systemic barriers to success, (2) implicit biases, (3) self-advocacy, and (4) burnout and stress. Solutions for issues that were discussed included (1) fostering supportive communities, (2) encouraging personal and professional development, and (3) the need for system-wide policy changes. We found that most women needed or benefited from the fostering of communities and desired opportunities for developing professional skills. Participants felt institutional transparency for grievances determined the level of support and confidence in reporting instances of mistreatment. Participants tended to define success according to (1) personal success and (2) leaving a legacy. Conclusions/Implications: Despite policy advancements and a social evolution away from discrimination against women, women in medicine continue to experience inequities across career stages. Potential solutions include fostering supportive communities, encouraging personal and professional development, and system-wide policy changes.

Preoperative Management of Medications for Rheumatologic and HIV Diseases: Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement (SPAQI) Consensus Statement.

Perioperative medical management is challenging because of the rising complexity of patients presenting for surgical procedures. A key part of preoperative optimization is appropriate management of long-term medications, yet guidelines and consensus statements for perioperative medication management are lacking. Available resources use recommendations derived from individual studies and do not include a multidisciplinary focus on formal consensus. The Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement identified a lack of authoritative clinical guidance as an opportunity to use its multidisciplinary membership to improve evidence-based perioperative care. The Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement seeks to provide guidance on perioperative medication management that synthesizes available literature with expert consensus. The aim of this consensus statement is to provide practical guidance on the preoperative management of immunosuppressive, biologic, antiretroviral, and anti-inflammatory medications. A panel of experts including hospitalists, anesthesiologists, internal medicine physicians, infectious disease specialists, and rheumatologists was appointed to identify the common medications in each of these categories. The authors then used a modified Delphi process to critically review the literature and to generate consensus recommendations.

Preoperative Management of Cardiovascular Medications: A Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement (SPAQI) Consensus Statement.

Cardiovascular conditions such as hypertension, arrhythmias, and heart failure are common in patients undergoing anesthesia for surgical or other procedures. Numerous guidelines from various specialty societies offer variable recommendations for the perioperative management of these medications. The Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement identified a need to provide multidisciplinary evidence-based recommendations for preoperative medication management. The society convened a group of 13 members with expertise in perioperative medicine and training in anesthesiology or internal medicine. The aim of this consensus effort is to provide perioperative clinicians with guidance on the management of cardiovascular medications commonly encountered during the preoperative evaluation. We used a modified Delphi process to establish consensus. Twenty-one classes of medications were identified: α-adrenergic receptor antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, ß-adrenoceptor blockers, calcium-channel blockers, centrally acting sympatholytic medications, direct-acting vasodilators, loop diuretics, thiazide diuretics, potassium-sparing diuretics, endothelin receptor antagonists, cardiac glycosides, nitrodilators, phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, class III antiarrhythmic agents, potassium-channel openers, renin inhibitors, class I antiarrhythmic agents, sodium-channel blockers, and sodium glucose cotransportor-2 inhibitors. We provide recommendations for the management of these medications preoperatively.

Group assessments of resident physicians improve reliability and decrease halo error.

BACKGROUND: Individual faculty assessments of resident competency are complicated by inconsistent application of standards, lack of reliability, and the "halo" effect. OBJECTIVE: We determined whether the addition of faculty group assessments of residents in an ambulatory clinic, compared with individual faculty-of-resident assessments alone, have better reliability and reduced halo effects. DESIGN: This prospective, longitudinal study was performed in the outpatient continuity clinics of a large internal medicine residency program. MAIN MEASURES: Faculty-on-resident and group faculty-on-resident assessment scores were used for comparison. KEY RESULTS: Overall mean scores were significantly higher for group than individual assessments (3.92 ± 0.51 vs. 3.83 ± 0.38, p = 0.0001). Overall inter-rater reliability increased when combining group and individual assessments compared to individual assessments alone (intraclass correlation coefficient, 95% CI = 0.828, 0.785-0.866 vs. 0.749, 0.686-0.804). Inter-item correlations were less for group (0.49) than individual (0.68) assessments. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates improved inter-rater reliability and reduced range restriction (halo effect) of resident assessment across multiple performance domains by adding the group assessment method to traditional individual faculty-on-resident assessment. This feasible model could help graduate medical education programs achieve more reliable and discriminating resident assessments.

Perioperative Cardiac Risk Reduction in Noncardiac Surgery.

Major adverse cardiovascular events are a significant source of morbidity and mortality in the perioperative setting, estimated to occur in approximately 5% of patients undergoing nonemergent noncardiac surgery. To minimize the incidence and impact of these events, careful attention must be paid to preoperative cardiovascular assessment to identify patients at high risk of cardiovascular complications. Once identified, cardiovascular risk reduction is achieved through optimization of medical conditions, appropriate management of medication, and careful monitoring to allow for early identification of-and intervention for-any new conditions that would increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. The major cardiovascular and anesthesiology societies in the United States, Europe, and Canada have published guidelines for perioperative management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. However, since publication of these guidelines, there has been a practice-changing evolution in the medical literature. In this review, we attempt to reconcile the recommendations made in these 3 comprehensive guidelines, while updating recommendations, based on new evidence, when available.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2020.

In a time of rapidly shifting evidence-based medicine, it is challenging to stay informed of research that modifies clinical practice. To enhance knowledge of practice-changing literature, a group of 7 internists reviewed titles and abstracts in 7 internal medicine journals with the highest impact factors and relevance to outpatient general internal medicine. Coronavirus disease-19 research was purposely excluded to highlight practice changes beyond the pandemic. New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), JAMA Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine were reviewed. The following collections of article synopses and databases were also reviewed: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on relevance to outpatient internal medicine, impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Clusters of articles pertaining to the same topic were considered together. In total, 7 practice-changing articles were included.

Preoperative Management of Surgical Patients Using Dietary Supplements: Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement (SPAQI) Consensus Statement.

The widespread use of complementary products poses a challenge to clinicians in the perioperative period and may increase perioperative risk. Because dietary supplements are regulated differently from traditional pharmaceuticals and guidance is often lacking, the Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement convened a group of experts to review available literature and create a set of consensus recommendations for the perioperative management of these supplements. Using a modified Delphi method, the authors developed recommendations for perioperative management of 83 dietary supplements. We have made our recommendations to discontinue or continue a dietary supplement based on the principle that without a demonstrated benefit, or with a demonstrated lack of harm, there is little downside in temporarily discontinuing an herbal supplement before surgery. Discussion with patients in the preoperative visit is a crucial time to educate patients as well as gather vital information. Patients should be specifically asked about use of dietary supplements and cannabinoids, as many will not volunteer this information. The preoperative clinic visit provides the best opportunity to educate patients about the perioperative management of various supplements as this visit is typically scheduled at least 2 weeks before the planned procedure.