The Impact of a Narrative Medicine Life Story Pilot Program on Press Ganey™ Scores in an Outpatient Cancer Center.

Oncology patients face challenges beyond those directly affecting their cancer management. Guided personal narrative programs have been shown to help patients with chronic conditions and life-framing events. Few such narrative programs have been reported for cancer patients or analyzed for their impact on patient experience. We established our Life Story Narrative Program, modeled on the United States Veterans Affairs' "My Life, My Story" for outpatient oncology patients in our hospital's cancer center. Press Ganey™ patient experience scores from program participants were compared retrospectively with scores from patients who were not participants. Over an eight-month period, we invited 30 cancer center outpatients to participate. Twenty-seven individuals accepted, and 18 had their stories edited, approved, and scanned into their electronic health record. Cohort matching yielded a control arm consisting of 255 responses from 48 surveys, while the intervention arm consisted of 68 responses from 12 surveys. 78.4% of responses from the control arm were rated 5 compared with 100% in the intervention arm. The mean Press Ganey™ score response in the control arm was 4.71 compared with 5.00 from the intervention arm. Wilcoxon U value was 10,540 with p < .001. An outpatient narrative medicine program for cancer patients to tell their life stories can easily be organized. Patients were willing to participate, enrollment was brisk, and the use of resources was limited. Although our sample size was small, participation in our Life Story Narrative Pilot Program resulted in a statistically significant improvement in Press Ganey™ scores.

Teaching clinical skills through videotape review: a randomized trial of group versus individual reviews.

BACKGROUND: Video review is a valuable educational tool for teaching communication skills. Many studies have demonstrated its efficacy with individual learners, but few studies have addressed its use in a group format. PURPOSE: To assess the educational benefits of group versus individual video review of standardized patient encounters through the evaluations of 4th-year students at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. METHODS: Students (128) who participated in a 7-station, standardized patient, clinical competency exam were randomly assigned to an individual or small group video review of selected segments of these encounters in 2000-2001. Students filled out an anonymous 13-item questionnaire assessing the experience and provided open-ended responses. RESULTS: With both review formats, most students had a positive learning experience (80%), found it less stressful than they expected (67%), and would not have preferred to do the review the other way (84%). Students randomized to individual reviews had a significantly higher level of satisfaction with the amount of time for the session (91% vs. 78%, p < .05) and the amount of feedback they received (95% vs. 79%, p = .01) and were more likely to view the session as a positive learning experience (88% vs. 73%, p < .05). Students in the individual review format were more likely to choose self-assessed weak segments (63% vs. 49%, p = .01). Students' comments indicated that they appreciated the value of peer review in a group setting. CONCLUSIONS: Although both group reviews and individual reviews of videotaped standardized patient encounters were received well by the students, there were several statistical differences in favor of the individual format.

Using the case-discussion method to teach epidemiology and biostatistics.

Medical students must learn the principles of epidemiology and biostatistics to critically evaluate the medical literature. However, this subject has traditionally been difficult to teach. In 1997 at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, the required first-year course in epidemiology and biostatistics was revised to use the case-discussion teaching method. In preparation for the course, experienced faculty participated in an intensive, two-day training workshop. The course, taught to 163 first-year medical students, was structured in two parts: (1) three lectures complemented by a detailed syllabus, followed by a multiple-choice midterm exam; and (2) six case-discussion seminars, followed by a short answer/essay final exam. There were seven case-discussion groups with 23-24 students each. The program was evaluated using subjective faculty feedback, examination scores, and student evaluation questionnaires. Faculty noted excellent student preparation and participation. Multiple-choice exam scores were comparable to those from earlier years, and a short answer/essay exam demonstrated good student mastery of the required material. Student evaluation was overwhelmingly positive, and significantly improved from prior years of the course. Positive student evaluations of the course using this teaching method continued over the next four years; National Board of Medical Examiners examination scores indicated success in mastery of the material; and student assessment of the course improved on the AAMC Graduation Questionnaire. This favorable experience suggests that case-discussion teaching can be employed successfully in teaching principles of epidemiology and biostatistics to medical students.