Characteristics of multi-institutional health sciences education research: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Multi-institutional research increases the generalizability of research findings. However, little is known about characteristics of collaborations across institutions in health sciences education research. Using a systematic review process, the authors describe characteristics of published, peer-reviewed multi-institutional health sciences education research to inform educators who are considering such projects. METHODS: Two medical librarians searched MEDLINE, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for English-language studies published between 2004 and 2013 using keyword terms related to multi-institutional systems and health sciences education. Teams of two authors reviewed each study and resolved coding discrepancies through consensus. Collected data points included funding, research network involvement, author characteristics, learner characteristics, and research methods. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen of 310 articles met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three (53%) studies received external and/or internal financial support (87% listed external funding, 37% listed internal funding). Forty-five funded studies involved graduate medical education programs. Twenty (17%) studies involved a research or education network. Eighty-five (89%) publications listed an author with a master's degree or doctoral degree. Ninety-two (78%) studies were descriptive, whereas 26 studies (22%) were experimental. The reported study outcomes were changes in student attitude (38%; n=44), knowledge (26%; n=31), or skill assessment (23%; n=27), as well as patient outcomes (9%; n=11). CONCLUSIONS: Multi-institutional descriptive studies reporting knowledge or attitude outcomes are highly published. Our findings indicate that funding resources are not essential to successfully undertake multi-institutional projects. Funded studies were more likely to originate from graduate medical or nursing programs.

Medical school handoff education improves postgraduate trainee performance and confidence.

OBJECTIVES: Determine postgraduate first-year (PGY-1) trainees ability to perform patient care handoffs and associated medical school training. METHODS: About 173 incoming PGY-1 trainees completed an OSCE handoff station and a survey eliciting their training and confidence in conducting handoffs. Independent t-tests compared OSCE performance of trainees who reported receiving handoff training to those who had not. Analysis of variance examined differences in performance based on prior handoff instruction and across levels of self-assessed abilities, with significance set at p<0.05. RESULTS: About 35% of trainees reported receiving instruction and 51% reported receiving feedback about their handoff performance in medical school. Mean handoff performance score was 69.5%. Trainees who received instruction or feedback during medical school had higher total and component handoff performance scores (p<0.05); they were also more confident in their handoff abilities (p<0.001). Trainees with higher self-assessed skills and preparedness performed better on the OSCE (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that incoming trainees are not well prepared to perform handoffs. However, those who received instruction during medical school perform better and are more confident on standardized performance assessments. Given communication failures lead to uncertainty in patient care and increases in medical errors, medical schools should incorporate handoff training as required instruction.