Patient Advocacy Assessment in the Medicine Clerkship: A Qualitative Study of Definition, Context, and Impact.

BACKGROUND: Advocacy is a core value of the medical profession. However, patient advocacy (advocacy) is not uniformly assessed and there are no studies of the behaviors clinical supervisors consider when assessing advocacy. OBJECTIVE: To explore how medical students and supervisors characterize advocacy during an internal medicine clerkship, how assessment of advocacy impacted students and supervisors, and elements that support effective implementation of advocacy assessment. DESIGN: A constructivist qualitative paradigm was used to understand advocacy assessment from the perspectives of students and supervisors. PARTICIPANTS: Medical students who completed the internal medicine clerkship at UCSF during the 2018 and 2019 academic years and supervisors who evaluated students during this period. APPROACH: Supervisor comments from an advocacy assessment item in the medicine clerkship and transcripts of focus groups were used to explore which behaviors students and supervisors deem to be advocacy. Separate focus groups with both students and supervisors examined the impact that advocacy assessment had on students' and supervisors' perceptions of advocacy and what additional context was necessary to effectively implement advocacy assessment. KEY RESULTS: Students and supervisors define advocacy as identifying and addressing social determinants of health, recognizing and addressing patient wishes and concerns, navigating the health care system, conducting appropriate evaluation and treatment, and creating exceptional therapeutic alliances. Effective implementation of advocacy assessment requires the creation of non-hierarchical team environments, supervisor role modeling, and pairing assessment with teaching of advocacy skills. Inclusion of advocacy assessment reflects and dictates institutional priorities, shapes professional identity formation, and enhances advocacy skill development for students and their supervisors. CONCLUSIONS: Students and supervisors consider advocacy to be a variety of behaviors beyond identifying and addressing social determinants of health. Effectively implementing advocacy assessment shapes students' professional identity formation, underscoring the critical importance of formally focusing on this competency in the health professions education.

A is for advocacy: How introducing student advocacy assessment impacts longitudinal integrated clerkship students and clinical supervisors.

To improve health, physicians are increasingly called to advocate. Yet medical schools have only recently focused on health advocacy skill-building. Limited work to date addresses assessing medical student advocacy on behalf of patients. We describe how students and clinical supervisors (CS) in two urban longitudinal integrated clerkships (LIC) experience patient advocacy and how introducing a new advocacy assessment impacts them. Using a thematic approach, we analyzed transcripts of focus groups during 2018-2019. Seventeen of 24 (71%) students and 15 of 21 (71%) CS participated in the focus groups. We describe how students perceive their advocacy role as they accompany the patient, amplify their voice, and facilitate connection. The rationale for advocacy assessment includes that it (1) adds a novel dimension to the written and verbal assessment, (2) drives student learning, (3) aligns with the institutional goal to promote equity, and (4) impacts CS teaching and clinical practice. Challenges are the ambiguity of expectations, pressure to 'perform,' and a moral overlay to advocacy assessment. Findings demonstrate how educational alliances between students and CS and longitudinal relationships between LIC students and patients offer a constructive opportunity for advocacy assessment. We describe suggestions to hone and expand the reach of advocacy assessment.

First year medical student perceptions of physician advocacy and advocacy as a core competency: A qualitative analysis.

PURPOSE: Medical societies have embraced advocacy as a core professional competency, but little is known about how entering medical students view physician advocacy. This study examined how first year medical students define advocacy, their motivations for and anticipated challenges to advocacy, and whether they believe advocacy should be a core competency. METHOD: This study used a qualitative content analysis approach to analyze first year medical student narrative responses about physician advocacy. The analysis included the written responses of 95% of the first-year medical students at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine during two academic years. RESULTS: Students shared consensus that physicians should advocate on behalf of their individual patients. Students had varying opinions on whether all physicians should engage in societal level advocacy and whether it should be a core competency in medical school. Students find several compelling reasons for physicians to engage in societal advocacy but nevertheless anticipate challenges to physician advocacy. CONCLUSION: Given increasing consensus that advocacy is a core competency of physicians, providing medical students the skills to successfully engage in advocacy is increasingly important. Any new mandatory curricula will need to focus on how to engage learners with varied views on advocacy.

Health Systems Innovation at Academic Health Centers: Leading in a New Era of Health Care Delivery.

Challenged by demands to reduce costs and improve service delivery, the U.S. health care system requires transformational change. Health systems innovation is defined broadly as novel ideas, products, services, and processes-including new ways to promote healthy behaviors and better integrate health services with public health and other social services-which achieve better health outcomes and/or patient experience at equal or lower cost. Academic health centers (AHCs) have an opportunity to focus their considerable influence and expertise on health systems innovation to create new approaches to service delivery and to nurture leaders of transformation. AHCs have traditionally used their promotions criteria to signal their values; creating a health systems innovator promotion track could be a critical step towards creating opportunities for innovators in academic medicine. In this Perspective, the authors review publicly available promotions materials at top-ranked medical schools and find that while criteria for advancement increasingly recognize systems innovation, there is a lack of specificity on metrics beyond the traditional yardstick of peer-reviewed publications. In addition to new promotions pathways and alternative evidence for the impact of scholarship, other approaches to fostering health systems innovation at AHCs include more robust funding for career development in health systems innovation, new curricula to enable trainees to develop skills in health systems innovation, and new ways for innovators to disseminate their work. AHCs that foster health systems innovation could meet a critical need to contribute both to the sustainability of our health care system and to AHCs' continued leadership role within it.

Incidence of Kawasaki disease in northern European countries.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to compare the epidemiologic features of Kawasaki disease (KD) in three northern European countries and Japan. METHODS: Data were obtained from discharge databases for hospitals in Finland, Norway, and Sweden for 1999-2009 and from nationwide epidemiologic surveys in Japan for 1998-2008. Annual incidence for each country was calculated using regional census data. RESULTS: During the 11 year period, 1390 KD patients were recorded in the registries of the three northern European countries. Average annual incidence rates per 100,000 children aged <5 years were: Finland, 11.4; Norway, 5.4; and Sweden, 7.4. Overall, 86.4% of Japanese KD patients were aged <5 years compared to only 67.8% in the four northern European countries (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of KD in northern Europe was constant over the study period and much lower than in Japan. There was a significant age difference between northern European and Japanese KD patients that remains unexplained.