Programmatic Assessment of Clinical Reasoning: New Opportunities to Meet an Ongoing Challenge.

Issue: Clinical reasoning is essential to physicians' competence, yet assessment of clinical reasoning remains a significant challenge. Clinical reasoning is a complex, evolving, non-linear, context-driven, and content-specific construct which arguably cannot be assessed at one point in time or with a single method. This has posed challenges for educators for many decades, despite significant development of individual assessment methods. Evidence: Programmatic assessment is a systematic assessment approach that is gaining momentum across health professions education. Programmatic assessment, and in particular assessment for learning, is well-suited to address the challenges with clinical reasoning assessment. Several key principles of programmatic assessment are particularly well-aligned with developing a system to assess clinical reasoning: longitudinality, triangulation, use of a mix of assessment methods, proportionality, implementation of intermediate evaluations/reviews with faculty coaches, use of assessment for feedback, and increase in learners' agency. Repeated exposure and measurement are critical to develop a clinical reasoning assessment narrative, thus the assessment approach should optimally be longitudinal, providing multiple opportunities for growth and development. Triangulation provides a lens to assess the multidimensionality and contextuality of clinical reasoning and that of its different, yet related components, using a mix of different assessment methods. Proportionality ensures the richness of information on which to draw conclusions is commensurate with the stakes of the decision. Coaching facilitates the development of a feedback culture and allows to assess growth over time, while enhancing learners' agency. Implications: A programmatic assessment model of clinical reasoning that is developmentally oriented, optimizes learning though feedback and coaching, uses multiple assessment methods, and provides opportunity for meaningful triangulation of data can help address some of the challenges of clinical reasoning assessment.

A university-wide seed grant program accelerates interprofessional education through faculty and staff engagement.

The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio launched an annual university-wide seed grant program in 2019 to foster innovation in interprofessional education (IPE) and increase IPE opportunities for learners. Program objectives included leveraging hypothesis-driven research to identify sustainable IPE activities for integration into educational programs (i.e. mandated for at least one cohort of learners), increasing scholarly dissemination of IPE efforts, and using pilot data to secure extramural funding. Over the first four funding cycles (2019-2022), US$100,509.00 was awarded to support 22 IPE projects (10 curricular, 12 co-curricular) involving 80 faculty and staff collaborators and over 2,100 student participants. To date, funded projects have yielded nine sustained IPE activities (four of which have been integrated), produced 24 scholarly presentations and three peer-reviewed publications, and contributed to the success of one extramural grant. Barriers experienced are discussed in this report alongside lessons learned and unexpected positive outcomes, including identification of future IPE champions.

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.

Clerkship Roles and Responsibilities in a Rapidly Changing Landscape: a National Survey of Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors.

BACKGROUND: In the rapidly changing landscape of undergraduate medical education (UME), the roles and responsibilities of clerkship directors (CDs) are not clear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the current roles and responsibilities of Internal Medicine CDs. DESIGN: National annual Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-nine clerkship directors at all Liaison Committee on Medical Education accredited US medical schools with CDIM membership as of September 1, 2017. MAIN MEASURES: Responsibilities of core CDs, including oversight of other faculty, and resources available to CDs including financial support and dedicated time. KEY RESULT: The survey response rate was 83% (107/129). Ninety-four percent of the respondents oversaw the core clerkship inpatient experience, while 47.7% (n = 51) and 5.6% (n = 6) oversaw the outpatient and longitudinal integrated clerkships respectively. In addition to oversight, CDs were responsible for curriculum development, evaluation and grades, remediation, scheduling, student mentoring, and faculty development. Less than one-third of CDs (n = 33) received the recommended 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) support for their roles, and 15% (n = 16) had less than 20% FTE support. An average 0.41 FTE (SD .2) was spent in clinical work and 0.20 FTE (SD .21) in administrative duties. Eighty-three percent worked with other faculty who assisted in the oversight of departmental UME experiences, with FTE support varying by role and institution. Thirty-five percent of CDs (n = 38) had a dedicated budget for managing their clerkship. CONCLUSIONS: The responsibilities of CDs have increased in both number and complexity since the dissemination of previous guidelines for expectations of and for CDs in 2003. However, resources available to them have not substantially changed.

Ready to collaborate?: medical learner experiences in interprofessional collaborative practice settings.

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP) offers great potential to improve healthcare. Increases in IPCP will require educating learners in authentic IPCP settings and will generate opportunities and challenges. METHODS: In January 2015, we implemented an IPCP model called Collaborative Care (CC) for hospitalized adult medical patients. We explored learner perspectives regarding their educational experiences. We deductively coded transcripts from semi-structured interviews with medical learners. Data related to educational experiences were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 28 (85.7%) medical learners rotating on CC from January to May 2015 completed interviews. Subsequent inductive analysis of these interviews identified four themes: Loss of Educational Opportunities during Rounds, Feelings of Uncertainty during New Situations, Strategies for Adaptation, and Improved Communication with Patients and the Team. CONCLUSIONS: Increased implementation of IPCP will lead to a greater number of learners being exposed to authentic IPCP settings and will generate opportunities and challenges. Though learners perceived improved communication skills in an IPCP model, they also described loss of profession-specific learning opportunities and feelings of uncertainty. These findings corroborate the need for novel teaching methods aligned with IPCP clinical learning environments and educational assessment strategies that reflect attainment of both profession-specific and interprofessional competencies.

Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning is at the core of health professionals' practice. A mapping of what constitutes clinical reasoning could support the teaching, development, and assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions. METHODS: We conducted a scoping study to map the literature on clinical reasoning across health professions literature in the context of a larger Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review on clinical reasoning assessment. Seven databases were searched using subheadings and terms relating to clinical reasoning, assessment, and Health Professions. Data analysis focused on a comprehensive analysis of bibliometric characteristics and the use of varied terminology to refer to clinical reasoning. RESULTS: Literature identified: 625 papers spanning 47 years (1968-2014), in 155 journals, from 544 first authors, across eighteen Health Professions. Thirty-seven percent of papers used the term clinical reasoning; and 110 other terms referring to the concept of clinical reasoning were identified. Consensus on the categorization of terms was reached for 65 terms across six different categories: reasoning skills, reasoning performance, reasoning process, outcome of reasoning, context of reasoning, and purpose/goal of reasoning. Categories of terminology used differed across Health Professions and publication types. DISCUSSION: Many diverse terms were present and were used differently across literature contexts. These terms likely reflect different operationalisations, or conceptualizations, of clinical reasoning as well as the complex, multi-dimensional nature of this concept. We advise authors to make the intended meaning of 'clinical reasoning' and associated terms in their work explicit in order to facilitate teaching, assessment, and research communication.

The terminology of clinical reasoning in health professions education: Implications and considerations.

Introduction: Clinical reasoning is considered to be at the core of health practice. Here, we report on the diversity and inferred meanings of the terms used to refer to clinical reasoning and consider implications for teaching and assessment. Methods: In the context of a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review of 625 papers drawn from 18 health professions, we identified 110 terms for clinical reasoning. We focus on iterative categorization of these terms across three phases of coding and considerations for how terminology influences educational practices. Results: Following iterative coding with 5 team members, consensus was possible for 74, majority coding was possible for 16, and full team disagreement existed for 20 terms. Categories of terms included: purpose/goal of reasoning, outcome of reasoning, reasoning performance, reasoning processes, reasoning skills, and context of reasoning. Discussion: Findings suggest that terms used in reference to clinical reasoning are non-synonymous, not uniformly understood, and the level of agreement differed across terms. If the language we use to describe, to teach, or to assess clinical reasoning is not similarly understood across clinical teachers, program directors, and learners, this could lead to confusion regarding what the educational or assessment targets are for "clinical reasoning."

Service and Education: The Association Between Workload, Patient Complexity, and Teaching on Internal Medicine Inpatient Services.

BACKGROUND: Attending rounds remain the primary venue for formal teaching and learning at academic medical centers. Little is known about the effect of increasing clinical demands on teaching during attending rounds. OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationships among teaching time, teaching topics, clinical workload, and patient complexity variables. DESIGN: Observational study of medicine teaching teams from September 2008 through August 2014. Teams at two large teaching hospitals associated with a single medical school were observed for periods of 2 to 4 weeks. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve medicine teaching teams consisting of one attending, one second- or third-year resident, two to three interns, and two to three medical students. MAIN MEASURES: The study examined relationships between patient complexity (comorbidities, complications) and clinical workload variables (census, turnover) with educational measures. Teams were clustered based on clinical workload and patient complexity. Educational measures of interest were time spent teaching and number of teaching topics. Data were analyzed both at the daily observation level and across a given patient's admission. KEY RESULTS: We observed 12 teams, 1994 discussions (approximately 373 h of rounds) of 563 patients over 244 observation days. Teams clustered into three groups: low patient complexity/high clinical workload, average patient complexity/low clinical workload, and high patient complexity/high clinical workload. Modest associations for team, patient complexity, and clinical workload variables were noted with total time spent teaching (9.1% of the variance in time spent teaching during a patient's admission; F[8,549] = 6.90, p < 0.001) and number of teaching topics (16% of the variance in the total number of teaching topics during a patient's admission; F[8,548] = 14.18, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical workload and patient complexity characteristics among teams were only modestly associated with total teaching time and teaching topics.

Contextual factors and clinical reasoning: differences in diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning in board certified versus resident physicians.

BACKGROUND: The impact of context on the complex process of clinical reasoning is not well understood. Using situated cognition as the theoretical framework and videos to provide the same contextual "stimulus" to all participants, we examined the relationship between specific contextual factors on diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning accuracy in board certified internists versus resident physicians. METHODS: Each participant viewed three videotaped clinical encounters portraying common diagnoses in internal medicine. We explicitly modified the context to assess its impact on performance (patient and physician contextual factors). Patient contextual factors, including English as a second language and emotional volatility, were portrayed in the videos. Physician participant contextual factors were self-rated sleepiness and burnout.. The accuracy of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning was compared with covariates using Fisher Exact, Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman Rho's correlations as appropriate. RESULTS: Fifteen board certified internists and 10 resident physicians participated from 2013 to 2014. Accuracy of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning did not differ between groups despite residents reporting significantly higher rates of sleepiness (mean rank 20.45 vs 8.03, U = 0.5, p < .001) and burnout (mean rank 20.50 vs 8.00, U = 0.0, p < .001). Accuracy of diagnosis and treatment were uncorrelated (r = 0.17, p = .65). In both groups, the proportion scoring correct responses for treatment was higher than the proportion scoring correct responses for diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores that specific contextual factors appear to impact clinical reasoning performance. Further, the processes of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning, although related, may not be interchangeable. This raises important questions about the impact that contextual factors have on clinical reasoning and provides insight into how clinical reasoning processes in more authentic settings may be explained by situated cognition theory.

The Association Between Sensemaking During Physician Team Rounds and Hospitalized Patients' Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Sensemaking is the social act of assigning meaning to ambiguous events. It is recognized as a means to achieve high reliability. We sought to assess sensemaking in daily patient care through examining how inpatient teams round and discuss patients. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to assess the association between inpatient physician team sensemaking and hospitalized patients' outcomes, including length of stay (LOS), unnecessary length of stay (ULOS), and complication rates. DESIGN: Eleven inpatient medicine teams' daily rounds were observed for 2 to 4 weeks. Rounds were audiotaped, and field notes taken. Four patient discussions per team were assessed using a standardized Situation, Task, Intent, Concern, Calibrate (STICC) framework. PARTICIPANTS: Inpatient physician teams at the teaching hospitals affiliated with the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio participated in the study. Outcomes of patients admitted to the teams were included. MAIN MEASURES: Sensemaking was assessed based on the order in which patients were seen, purposeful rounding, patient-driven rounding, and individual patient discussions. We assigned teams a score based on the number of STICC elements used in the four patient discussions sampled. The association between sensemaking and outcomes was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis sum rank and Dunn's tests. KEY RESULTS: Teams rounded in several different ways. Five teams rounded purposefully, and four based rounds on patient-driven needs. Purposeful and patient-driven rounds were significantly associated with lower complication rates. Varying the order in which patients were seen and purposefully rounding were significantly associated with lower LOS, and purposeful and patient-driven rounds associated with lower ULOS. Use of a greater number of STICC elements was associated with significantly lower LOS (4.6 vs. 5.7, p = 0.01), ULOS (0.3 vs. 0.6, p = 0.02), and complications (0.2 vs. 0.5, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Improving sensemaking may be a strategy for improving patient outcomes, fostering a shared understanding of a patient's clinical trajectory, and enabling high reliability.

Consequences of contextual factors on clinical reasoning in resident physicians.

Context specificity and the impact that contextual factors have on the complex process of clinical reasoning is poorly understood. Using situated cognition as the theoretical framework, our aim was to evaluate the verbalized clinical reasoning processes of resident physicians in order to describe what impact the presence of contextual factors have on their clinical reasoning. Participants viewed three video recorded clinical encounters portraying straightforward diagnoses in internal medicine with select patient contextual factors modified. After watching each video recording, participants completed a think-aloud protocol. Transcripts from the think-aloud protocols were analyzed using a constant comparative approach. After iterative coding, utterances were analyzed for emergent themes with utterances grouped into categories, themes and subthemes. Ten residents participated in the study with saturation reached during analysis. Participants universally acknowledged the presence of contextual factors in the video recordings. Four categories emerged as a consequence of the contextual factors: (1) emotional reactions (2) behavioral inferences (3) optimizing the doctor patient relationship and (4) difficulty with closure of the clinical encounter. The presence of contextual factors may impact clinical reasoning performance in resident physicians. When confronted with the presence of contextual factors in a clinical scenario, residents experienced difficulty with closure of the encounter, exhibited as diagnostic uncertainty. This finding raises important questions about the relationship between contextual factors and clinical reasoning activities and how this relationship might influence the cost effectiveness of care. This study also provides insight into how the phenomena of context specificity may be explained using situated cognition theory.

Clinical Interprofessional Education in Inpatient Pharmacy: Findings From a Secondary Analysis of a Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical interprofessional education (IPE) is defined as learning that occurs within clinical learning environments such as hospitals, primary care clinics, and long-term care facilities where learners collaborate to deliver care to real patients. The objective of this secondary analysis of a scoping review is to identify, characterize, and summarize evidence from the published literature regarding clinical IPE for pharmacy learners in the inpatient setting. FINDINGS: PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were searched for clinical IPE articles that met the following inclusion criteria: ≥ 2 health professions, ≥ 2 learner groups, and involvement of real patients/patient care. For this secondary analysis, 12 articles involving pharmacy learners in an inpatient setting were included. The most common interprofessional partner was medicine (66%), and the median number of student participants involved in the activity was 19 (range, 10-525). Five studies conducted clinical IPE in the context of advanced pharmacy practice experiences. Clinical IPE activities were described primarily as inpatient rounding with the medical team, but were often outside the normal clinical workflow (66%). Incorporation of Interprofessional Education Collaborative competencies was limited, as was the use of validated IPE assessment tools to measure outcomes. SUMMARY: Current literature is limited in reports of pharmacy learner involvement in inpatient clinical IPE. Expansion of pharmacy partnerships and alignment of team outcomes with the Interprofessional Education Collaborative competencies are needed to demonstrate the relationship between clinical IPE and patient care outcomes within established workflows.

Comparing Perceptions of Virtual and In-Person Interviews: Results From a National Survey of Internal Medicine Residents.

Background Since 2020, virtual interviews have become the typical way in which applicants assess residency programs. It is unknown whether the change from in-person to virtual interviews has been associated with changes in perceptions of the quality of information gathered by prospective applicants. Objective To ascertain perspectives on the satisfaction with, quality of, and accuracy of information gathered by internal medicine (IM) residency applicants from virtual and in-person interviews. Methods Twenty-nine thousand, seven hundred and seventy-six residents from US and Puerto Rico residency programs sitting for the 2022 American College of Physicians Internal Medicine In-Training Examination (IM-ITE) were surveyed. An optional, 5-question survey was administered at the end of the examination. Responses were analyzed based on interview format-virtual (postgraduate year [PGY]-1-2) or in-person (PGY-3)-and PGY. Results Of 29 776, 23 161 residents responded to the survey (77.8% response rate). Regardless of PGY, respondents reported a high degree of satisfaction with the quality of information gathered from their interview day, though there was a statistically significant difference between virtual and in-person [somewhat/very satisfied: In-person 5938 of 7410 (80.1%); 95% CI [79.2, 81.0] vs virtual 12 070 of 15 751 (76.6%); 95% CI [76.0, 77.3]:P<.001]. Residents in all PGYs reported sessions with residents and one-on-one interviews as the most important factors when creating their rank lists. Conclusions We found differences in satisfaction and perceptions of the quality of information gathered between IM residents who participated in virtual and in-person interviews. However, regardless of format, most respondents reported satisfaction with their interview experience.

The required written history and physical is alive, but not entirely well, in internal medicine clerkships.

BACKGROUND: Effective written communication is a core competency for medical students, but it is unclear whether or how this skill is evaluated in clinical clerkships. PURPOSE: This study identifies current requirements and practices regarding required written work during internal medicine clerkships. METHODS: In 2010, Clerkship Directors of Internal Medicine (CDIM) surveyed its institutional members; one section asked questions about students' written work. RESULTS were compared to similar, unpublished CDIM 2001 survey questions. RESULTS: Requirements for student-written work were nearly universal (96% in 2001 and 100% in 2010). Only 23% used structured evaluation forms and 16% reported written work was weighted as a percentage of the final grade, although 72% of respondents reported that written work was "factored" into global ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite near universal requirements for student written work, structured evaluation was not commonly performed, raising concern about the validity of factoring these assessments into grades.

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 in Collaborative Online Learning Yields Sustainable Model for University-wide Interprofessional Education.

BACKGROUND: Growing health professional accreditation mandates and expectations for interprofessional education (IPE) have led to heightened interest amongst health professions educators and administrators in the creation and development of effective and sustainable IPE programming. IPE ACTIVITY: At the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, an institution-wide initiative called Linking Interprofessional Networks for Collaboration (LINC) was initiated to strengthen IPE knowledge and skills, increase IPE offerings, and integrate IPE into curricula. In 2020, stakeholders developed, implemented, and evaluated a university-wide IPE activity called the LINC Common IPE Experience, which includes three collaborative online learning modules that students complete synchronously using a videoconference platform without direct faculty facilitation. Mini-lectures, interprofessional discussions, and authentic case studies using innovative media facilitated meaningful engagement of 977 students from 26 different educational programs. DISCUSSION: Quantitative and qualitative results from evaluations demonstrated significant student engagement, increased awareness and understanding of teamwork, progress towards interprofessional competency development, and benefits related to professional development. The LINC Common IPE Experience provides a valuable example of a robust, high-impact foundational IPE activity that can serve as a sustainable model for university-wide IPE.

Postinterview communication between military residency applicants and training programs.

PURPOSE: Each year military medical students participate in a separate, military match culminating with the Joint Services Graduate Medical Education Selection Board (JSGMESB). Prior studies have explored postinterview communication that occurs during the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP), but not during the JSGMESB. We examined the frequency and nature of communication during the JSGMESB and compared it with the NRMP. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey study of senior students conducted at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU) and seven civilian U.S. medical schools during March to May 2010. Respondents answered questions regarding communication with residency programs during the match. RESULTS: Significantly fewer USU respondents communicated with programs compared with the civilian cohort (54.1% vs. 86.4%, p < 0.01). Specific inquiries regarding rank order were more commonly experienced by USU respondents compared with civilians (17.5% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.02). USU respondents found postinterview communication both helpful (41.3%) and stressful (41.3%). 11.1% of USU respondents indicated that they moved a program higher on their final rank lists because of further communication with these programs. CONCLUSIONS: Postinterview communication during the JSGMESB process is less common and less stressful than that reported in the NRMP. USU respondents are more likely to be asked directly about their rank list and occasionally do change their lists. Uniform guidance mirroring the NRMP's dealing with direct inquiries about rank lists could potentially improve the process.

Clinical interprofessional education in the health professions: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify, characterize, and summarize evidence from the published literature on clinical interprofessional education. INTRODUCTION: Clinical interprofessional education refers to learning within clinical learning environments, such as hospitals, primary care clinics, and long-term care facilities. The learning involves direct interaction with real patients, where learners collaborate to deliver care and improve health outcomes. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review will consider clinical interprofessional education activities in the context of patient care. Criteria include two or more health professions, two or more learner groups, and involvement of real patients/patient care. METHODS: This review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Databases searched will include PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus. Results will be limited to English language publications from 2015 to the present. Extracted data will include the different types of clinical learning environments, the professions involved, the targeted learning/competency outcomes, and the measurement tools used by the authors. Titles/abstracts and full texts of articles will be screened by two reviewers for potential inclusion, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer if necessary. Extracted data will be presented in diagrammatic or tabular format. A narrative summary will accompany the tabulated and/or charted results, describing how the results relate to the review objective and research questions, and how the results might inform future clinical interprofessional education in health professions education.