Bias Reporting in the Clinical Learning Environment: A National Survey of Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors.

PURPOSE: Bias exists in the internal medicine (IM) clinical learning environment; however, it is unclear how often bias is identified by clerkship directors (CDs), how bias is addressed, and whether best practices exist for identifying or mitigating bias. This study investigated how IM CDs receive and respond to bias reports in the clinical learning environment. METHOD: In May 2021, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) created an 18-question survey assessing the frequency of bias reports, macroaggressions and microaggressions, and report outcomes. Of the 152 U.S. medical schools that met study accreditation criteria, the final survey population included 137 CDs (90%) whose medical schools held valid CDIM membership. RESULTS: Of the 137 surveys sent, 100 were returned (survey response rate, 73%). Respondents reported a median of 3 bias events (interquartile range, 1-4; range, 0-50) on the IM clerkship in the past year. Among 76 respondents who reported 1 or more event, microaggressions represented 43 of the 75 total events (57%). No mechanism emerged as the most commonly used method for reporting bias. Race/ethnicity (48 of 75 [64%]) and gender (41 of 75 [55%]) were cited most as the basis for bias reports, whereas the most common sources of bias were student interactions with attending physicians (51 of 73 [70%]) and residents (40 of 73 [55%]). Of the 75 respondents, 53 (71%) described the frequency of bias event reports as having increased or remained unchanged during the past year. Only 48 CDs (49%) responded that they were "always" aware of the outcome of bias reports. CONCLUSIONS: Bias reports remain heterogeneous, are likely underreported, and lack best practice responses. There is a need to systematically capture bias events to work toward a just culture that fosters accountability and to identify bias events through more robust reporting.

Medical student advising during virtual residency recruitment: results of a national survey of internal medicine clerkship and sub-internship directors.

INTRODUCTION: The residency application process is a critical time for medical students. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted changes to the residency recruitment procedures with the conversion of interviews to a virtual format. For medical school advisors guiding students on an all-virtual residency application process brought uncertainty to their advising practices. Thus, this study aimed to identify advising practices during the 2021 virtual application cycle. METHODS: We administered an IRB-exempt national survey through the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine to 186 internal medicine core/co-/associate/assistant clerkship directors and sub-internship directors representing 140 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited U.S./U.S.-territory-based medical schools in spring 2021. The 23-question survey was designed and pilot-tested by faculty-educators and leaders with expertise in undergraduate medical education. Data analysis included paired t- and z-tests and thematic analysis of open-ended questions. RESULTS: The institutional response rate was 67% (93/140) and individual rate 55% (103/186). Half of the respondents felt prepared/very prepared (40% and 13% respectively) for their advising roles. Compared to pre-pandemic cycles, respondents advised a typical student in the middle-third of their class at their institution to apply to more residency programs (mean 24 programs vs 20, p < 0.001) and accept more interviews (mean 14 interviews vs 12, p < 0.001). Sixty-three percent (64/101) of respondents spent more time on student advising; 51% (51/101) reported more students asked them for informal advice. Fifty-nine percent (60/101) of respondents reported their advisees were able to assess a residency program 'somewhat well;' 31% (31/101) expressed that residency recruitment should remain entirely virtual in the future. CONCLUSION: The transition to virtual residency recruitment due to COVID-19 prompted advising practices that may have contributed to application inflation and increased advising workload. Future studies should explore longitudinal outcomes of virtual interviews on student success to guide best practices in how to advise students during residency recruitment.

Innovation and Missed Opportunities in Internal Medicine Undergraduate Education During COVID-19: Results from a National Survey.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 disrupted undergraduate clinical education when medical schools removed students from clinical rotations following AAMC recommendations. Clerkship directors (CDs) had to adapt rapidly and modify clerkship curricula. However, the scope and effects of these modifications are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of the initial phase of COVID-19 on the internal medicine (IM) undergraduate clinical education. DESIGN: A nationally representative web survey. PARTICIPANTS: IM CDs from 137 LCME-accredited US medical schools in 2020. MAIN MEASURES: Items (80) assessed clerkship structure and curriculum, assessment in clerkships, post-clerkship IM clinical experiences, and CD roles and support. The framework of Understanding Crisis Response (Royal Society for Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce) was used to determine whether curricular modifications were "amplified," "restarted," "let go," or "ended." KEY RESULTS: Response rate was 74%. In response to COVID-19, 32% (32/101) of clerkships suspended all clinical activities and 66% (67/101) only in-person. Prior to clinical disruption, students spent a median of 8.0 weeks (IQR: 2) on inpatient and 2.0 weeks (IQR: 4) on ambulatory rotations; during clinical re-entry, students were spending 5.0 (IQR: 3) and 1.0 (IQR: 2) weeks, respectively. Bedside teaching and physical exam instruction were "let go" during the early phase. Students were removed from direct patient care for a median of 85.5 days. The sub-internship curriculum remained largely unaffected. Before the pandemic, 11% of schools were using a pass/fail grading system; at clinical re-entry 47% and during the survey period 23% were using it. Due to the pandemic, 78.2% of CDs assumed new roles or had expanded responsibilities; 51% reported decreased scholarly productivity. CONCLUSIONS: Curricular adaptations occurred in IM clerkships across US medical schools as a result of COVID-19. More research is needed to explore the long-term implications of these changes on medical student education and clinical learning environments.

Roles and Responsibilities of Medicine Subinternship Directors : Medicine Subinternship Director Roles.

BACKGROUND: The internal medicine (IM) subinternship (also referred to as acting internship) plays a crucial part in preparing medical students for residency. The roles, responsibilities, and support provided to subinternship directors have not been described. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe the current role of IM subinternship directors with respect to their responsibilities, salary support, and reporting structure. DESIGN: Nationally representative, annually recurring thematic survey of IM core clerkship directors with membership in an academic professional association as of September 2017. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 129 core clinical medicine clerkship directors at Liaison Committee on Medical Education fully accredited U.S./U.S.-territory-based medical schools. MAIN MEASURES: Responsibilities, salary support, and reporting structure of subinternship directors. KEY RESULTS: The survey response rate was 83.0% (107/129 medical schools). Fifty-one percent (54/107) of respondents reported overseeing both core clerkship inpatient experiences and/or one or more subinternships. For oversight, 49.1% (28/53) of subinternship directors also reported that they were the clerkship director, 26.4% (14/53) that another faculty member directed all medicine subinternships, and 18.9% (10/53) that each subinternship had its own director. The most frequently reported responsibilities for the subinternship directors were administration, including scheduling, and logistics of student schedules (83.0%, 44/53), course evaluation (81.1%, 43/53), and setting grades 79.2% (42/53). The modal response for estimated FTE per course was 10-20% FTE, with 33.3% (16/48) reporting this level of support and 29.2% (14/54) reporting no FTE support. CONCLUSIONS: The role of the IM subinternship director has become increasingly complex. Since the IM subinternship is critical to preparing students for residency, IM subinternship directors require standard expectations and adequate support. Future studies are needed to determine the appropriate level of support for subinternship directors and to define essential roles and responsibilities.

Bridging the Gap Between the Classroom and the Clerkship: A Clinical Reasoning Curriculum for Third-Year Medical Students.

Introduction: Clinical reasoning is the complex cognitive process that drives the diagnosis of disease and treatment of patients. There is a national call for medical educators to develop clinical reasoning curricula in undergraduate medical education. To address this need, we developed a longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum for internal medicine clerkship students. Methods: We delivered six 1-hour sessions to approximately 40 students over the 15-week combined medicine-surgery clerkship at Penn State College of Medicine. We developed the content using previous work in clinical reasoning, including the American College of Physicians' Teaching Medicine Series book Teaching Clinical Reasoning. Students applied a clinical reasoning diagnostic framework to written cases during each workshop. Each session followed a scaffold approach and built upon previously learned clinical reasoning skills. We administered a pre- and postsurvey to assess students' baseline knowledge of clinical reasoning concepts and perceived confidence in performing clinical reasoning skills. Students also provided open-ended responses regarding the effectiveness of the curriculum. Results: The curriculum was well received by students and led to increased perceived knowledge of clinical reasoning concepts and increased confidence in applying clinical reasoning skills. Students commented on the usefulness of practicing clinical reasoning in a controlled environment while utilizing a framework that could be deliberately applied to patient care. Discussion: The longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum was effective in reinforcing key concepts of clinical reasoning and allowed for deliberate practice in a controlled environment. The curriculum is generalizable to students in both the preclinical and clinical years.