Advancing anti-oppression and social justice in healthcare through competency-based medical education (CBME).

Competency-based medical education (CBME) focuses on preparing physicians to improve the health of patients and populations. In the context of ongoing health disparities worldwide, medical educators must implement CBME in ways that advance social justice and anti-oppression. In this article, authors describe how CBME can be implemented to promote equity pedagogy, an approach to education in which curricular design, teaching, assessment strategies, and learning environments support learners from diverse groups to be successful. The five core components of CBME programs - outcomes competency framework, progressive sequencing of competencies, learning experiences tailored to learners' needs, teaching focused on competencies, and programmatic assessment - enable individualization of learning experiences and teaching and encourage learners to partner with their teachers in driving their learning. These educational approaches appreciate each learner's background, experiences, and strengths. Using an exemplar case study, the authors illustrate how CBME can afford opportunities to enhance anti-oppression and social justice in medical education and promote each learner's success in meeting the expected outcomes of training. The authors provide recommendations for individuals and institutions implementing CBME to enact equity pedagogy.

"It's Time to Do It, to Make It a Major Part of Medicine": Faculty Experience With a Shift Toward an Antioppressive Medical School Curriculum.

PURPOSE: Health inequities compel medical educators to transform curricula to prepare physicians to improve the health of diverse populations. This mandate requires curricular focus on antioppression, which is a change for faculty who learned and taught under a different paradigm. This study used the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) to explore faculty perceptions of and experiences with a shift to a curriculum that prioritizes antioppressive content and process. METHOD: In this qualitative study, authors interviewed faculty course directors and teachers at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine from March 2021 to January 2022. Questions addressed faculty experience and understanding regarding the curriculum shift toward antioppression, perceptions of facilitators and barriers to change, and their interactions with colleagues and learners about this change. Using the CBAM components as sensitizing concepts, the authors conducted thematic analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen faculty participated. Their perceptions of their experience with the first year of an antioppression curriculum initiative were characterized by 3 broad themes: (1) impetus for change, (2) personal experience with antioppressive curricular topics, and (3) strategies necessary to accomplish the change. Faculty described 3 driving forces for the shift toward antioppressive curricula: moral imperative, response to national and local events, and evolving culture of medicine. Despite broad alignment with the change, faculty expressed uncertainties on 3 subthemes: uncertainty about what is an antioppressive curriculum, the scientific perspective, and fear. Faculty also reflected on primary facilitators and barriers to accomplishing the change. CONCLUSIONS: The shift to an antioppressive curriculum compels faculty to increase their knowledge and skills and adopt a critical, self-reflective lens on the interplay of medicine and oppression. This study's findings can inform faculty development efforts and highlight curricular leadership and resources needed to support faculty through this type of curricular change.

How Teachers Can Promote Assessment for Learning During All Phases of Learning.

Assessment for Learning (AFL) includes all educational activities designed to improve teaching and learning through gathering, sharing, and acting on information. AFL expands on the concept of formative assessment-which focuses mainly on an in-the-moment assessment activity-to include all processes that facilitate teachers and learners actively seeking and interpreting evidence to guide learning. AFL involves teachers and learners as partners and uses evidence to identify what the learner needs to learn (planning), review where the learner is in their learning (observing), and strategize how to maximize learning (supporting). 1 We provide the following guidelines for teachers to implement AFL within these 3 phases of a learning activity. Teachers should tailor their choice of AFL strategies to suit their relationship with the learner and learning environment context, aiming to support the development of self-regulated learning and metacognitive skills.

Developing Evidence for Equitable Assessment Characteristics Based on Clinical Learner Preferences Using Discrete Choice Experiments.

PURPOSE: Medical education is only beginning to explore the factors that contribute to equitable assessment in clinical settings. Increasing knowledge about equitable assessment ensures a quality medical education experience that produces an excellent, diverse physician workforce equipped to address the health care disparities facing patients and communities. Through the lens of the Anti-Deficit Achievement framework, the authors aimed to obtain evidence for a model for equitable assessment in clinical training. METHOD: A discrete choice experiment approach was used which included an instrument with 6 attributes each at 2 levels to reveal learner preferences for the inclusion of each attribute in equitable assessment. Self-identified underrepresented in medicine (UIM) and not underrepresented in medicine (non-UIM) (N = 306) fourth-year medical students and senior residents in medicine, pediatrics, and surgery at 9 institutions across the United States completed the instrument. A mixed-effects logit model was used to determine attributes learners valued most. RESULTS: Participants valued the inclusion of all assessment attributes provided except for peer comparison. The most valued attribute of an equitable assessment was how learner identity, background, and trajectory were appreciated by clinical supervisors. The next most valued attributes were assessment of growth, supervisor bias training, narrative assessments, and assessment of learner's patient care, with participants willing to trade off any of the attributes to get several others. There were no significant differences in value placed on assessment attributes between UIM and non-UIM learners. Residents valued clinical supervisors valuing learner identity, background, and trajectory and clinical supervisor bias training more so than medical students. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers support for the components of an antideficit-focused model for equity in assessment and informs efforts to promote UIM learner success and guide equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives in medical education.

"My Assessments Are Biased!" Measurement and Sociocultural Approaches to Achieve Fairness in Assessment in Medical Education.

Assessing learners is foundational to their training and developmental growth throughout the medical education continuum. However, growing evidence shows the prevalence and impact of harmful bias in assessments in medical education, accelerating the urgency to identify solutions. Assessment bias presents a critical problem for all stages of learning and the broader educational system. Bias poses significant challenges to learners, disrupts the learning environment, and threatens the pathway and transition of learners into health professionals. While the topic of assessment bias has been examined within the context of measurement literature, limited guidance and solutions exist for learners in medical education, particularly in the clinical environment. This article presents an overview of assessment bias, focusing on clinical learners. A definition of bias and its manifestations in assessments are presented. Consequences of assessment bias are discussed within the contexts of validity and fairness and their impact on learners, patients/caregivers, and the broader field of medicine. Messick's unified validity framework is used to contextualize assessment bias; in addition, perspectives from sociocultural contexts are incorporated into the discussion to elaborate the nuanced implications in the clinical training environment. Discussions of these topics are conceptualized within the literature and the interventions used to date. The article concludes with practical recommendations to overcome bias and to develop an ideal assessment system. Recommendations address articulating values to guide assessment, designing assessment to foster learning and outcomes, attending to assessment procedures, promoting continuous quality improvement of assessment, and fostering equitable learning and assessment environments.

The Consequences of Step 2 Clinical Skills Examination Discontinuation for Medical Schools and Sustainability Plans for Clinical Skills Assessment.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive clinical skills examinations using standardized patients are widely used to assess multiple physician competencies. However, these exams are resource intensive. With the discontinuation of the Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) exam in 2021, how medical schools will change their approaches to comprehensive clinical skills exams is unknown. This study explores school responses to this change and future directions of comprehensive clinical skills exams using the program sustainability framework. METHOD: This cross-sectional, descriptive study surveyed medical school curriculum deans at 150 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited U.S. medical schools from September to October 2021. The 30-question survey included questions about medical school and participant role, current comprehensive clinical skills exams, sustainability dimensions, and challenges and future directions. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize responses, and content analysis was used to identify themes in the open-ended responses. RESULTS: Educators at 75 of 150 institutions (50%) responded. Sixty-three respondents (84%) reported conducting a comprehensive clinical skills exam. The comprehensive clinical skills exam assessed readiness for graduation (51 [81%]), provided feedback for students (49 [78%]), evaluated curricula (38 [60%]), provided information for medical student performance evaluation or communication with residency (10 [16%]), and assessed other factors (6 [10%]), including preparation for Step 2 CS in the past and readiness for advancement to fourth year of medical school (multiple responses were allowed). Factors facilitating sustainability included sufficient funding to continue the exam (55 [87%]) and the belief that clinical skills assessment in medical school is now more important after discontinuation of the Step 2 CS exam (55 [87%]). Challenges to sustainability included organizational capacity and limited interinstitutional collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Educators remain committed to the purpose of comprehensive clinical skills exams. Adapting to changed licensing requirements while sustaining clinical skills exams enables innovation and improvement in assessment of clinical competence.

The Clinical Microsystems Clerkship at University of California, San Francisco: Integrating Clinical Skills and Health Systems Improvement for Early Medical Students.

PROBLEM: Medical educators recognize that partnering actively with health system leaders closes significant health care experience, quality, and outcomes gaps. Medical schools have explored innovations training physicians to care for both individual patients and populations while improving systems of care. Yet, early medical student education fails to include systems improvement as foundational skills. When health systems science is taught, it is often separated from core clinical skills. APPROACH: The Clinical Microsystems Clerkship at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, launched in 2016, integrates clinical skills training with health systems improvement from the start of medical school. Guided by communities of practice and workplace learning principles, it embeds first-year and second-year students in longitudinal clinical microsystems with physician coaches and interprofessional clinicians one day per week. Students learn medical history, physical examination, patient communication, interprofessional teamwork, and health systems improvement. Assessments include standardized patient examinations and improvement project reports. Program outcome measures include student satisfaction and attitudes, clinical skills performance, and evidence of systems improvement learning, including dissemination and scholarship. OUTCOMES: Students reported high satisfaction (first-year, 4.10; second-year, 4.29, on a scale of 1-5) and value (4.14) in their development as physicians. Clinical skills assessment accuracy was high (70%-96%). Guided by interprofessional clinicians across 15 departments, students completed 258 improvement projects in 3 health systems (academic, safety net, Veterans Affairs). Sample projects reduced disparities in hypertension, improved opiate safety, and decreased readmissions. Graduating students reported both clinical skills and health systems knowledge as important to physician success, patient experience, and clinical outcomes (4.73). Most graduates discussed their projects in residency applications (85%) and disseminated related papers and presentations (54%). NEXT STEPS: Integrating systems improvement, interprofessional teamwork, and clinical skills training can redefine early medical student education. Health system perspectives, long-term outcomes, and sustainability merit further exploration.

Beyond Checking Boxes: Exploring Tensions With Use of a Workplace-Based Assessment Tool for Formative Assessment in Clerkships.

PURPOSE: To understand the role of a workplace-based assessment (WBA) tool in facilitating feedback for medical students, this study explored changes and tensions in a clerkship feedback activity system through the lens of cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) over 2 years of tool implementation. METHOD: This qualitative study uses CHAT to explore WBA use in core clerkships by identifying feedback activity system elements (e.g., community, tools, rules, objects) and tensions among these elements. University of California, San Francisco core clerkship students were invited to participate in semistructured interviews eliciting experience with a WBA tool intended to enhance direct observation and feedback in year 1 (2019) and year 2 (2020) of implementation. In year 1, the WBA tool required supervisor completion in the school's evaluation system on a computer. In year 2, both students and supervisors had WBA completion abilities and could access the form via a smartphone separate from the school's evaluation system. RESULTS: Thirty-five students participated in interviews. The authors identified tensions that shifted with time and tool iterations. Year 1 students described tensions related to cumbersome tool design, fear of burdening supervisors, confusion over WBA purpose, WBA as checking boxes, and WBA usefulness depending on clerkship context and culture. Students perceived dissatisfaction with the year 1 tool version among peers and supervisors. The year 2 mobile-based tool and student completion capabilities helped to reduce many of the tensions noted in year 1. Students expressed wider WBA acceptance among peers and supervisors in year 2 and reported understanding WBA to be for low-stakes feedback, thereby supporting formative assessment for learning. CONCLUSIONS: Using CHAT to explore changes in a feedback activity system with WBA tool iterations revealed elements important to WBA implementation, including designing technology for tool efficiency and affording students autonomy to document feedback with WBAs.

Moving toward Mastery: Changes in Student Perceptions of Clerkship Assessment with Pass/Fail Grading and Enhanced Feedback.

ProblemClerkship grades contribute to a summative assessment culture in clerkships and can therefore interfere with students' learning. For example, by focusing on summative, tiered clerkship grades, students often discount accompanying feedback that could inform future learning. This case report seeks to explore whether an assessment system intervention which eliminated tiered grades and enhanced feedback was associated with changes in student perceptions of clerkship assessment and perceptions of the clinical learning environment. Intervention: In January 2019, our institution eliminated tiered clerkship grading (honors/pass/fail) for medical students during the core clerkship year and implemented pass/fail clerkship grading along with required twice weekly, work-based assessments for formative feedback. Context: In this single institution, cross-sectional survey study, we collected data from fourth-year medical students one year after an assessment system intervention. The intervention entailed changing from honors/pass/fail to pass/fail grading in all eight core clerkships and implementing an electronic system to record twice-weekly real-time formative work-based assessments. The survey queried student perceptions on the fairness and accuracy of grading and the clinical learning environment-including whether clerkships were mastery- or performance-oriented. We compared responses from students one year after the assessment intervention to those from the class one year before the intervention. Comparisons were made using unpaired, two-tailed t-tests or chi-squared tests as appropriate with Cohen's d for effect size estimation for score differences. Content analysis was used to analyze responses from two open-ended questions about feedback and grading. Impact: Survey response rates were similar before and after intervention (76% (127/168) vs. 72% (118/163), respectively) with no between-group differences in demographics. The after-intervention group showed statistically significant increases in the following factors: "grades are transparent and fair" (Cohen's d = 0.80), "students receive useful feedback" (d = 0.51), and "resident evaluation procedures are fair" (d = 0.40). After-intervention respondents perceived the clerkship learning environment to be more mastery-oriented (d = 0.52), less performance approach-oriented (d = 0.63), and less performance avoid-oriented (d = 0.49). There were no statistical differences in the factors "attending evaluation procedures are fair," "evaluations are accurate," "evaluations are biased," or "perception of stereotype threat." Open-ended questions revealed student recommendations to improve clerkship summary narratives, burden of work-based assessment, and in-person feedback. Lessons Learned: After an assessment system change to pass/fail grading with work-based assessments, we observed moderate to large improvements in student perceptions of clerkship grading and the mastery orientation of the learning environment. Our intervention did not improve perceptions around bias in assessment in clerkships. Other medical schools may consider similar interventions to begin to address student concerns with clerkship assessment and promote a more adaptive learning environment.

Key considerations in planning and designing programmatic assessment in competency-based medical education.

Programmatic assessment as a concept is still novel for many in clinical education, and there may be a disconnect between the academics who publish about programmatic assessment and the front-line clinical educators who must put theory into practice. In this paper, we clearly define programmatic assessment and present high-level guidelines about its implementation in competency-based medical education (CBME) programs. The guidelines are informed by literature and by lessons learned from established programmatic assessment approaches. We articulate five steps to consider when implementing programmatic assessment in CBME contexts: articulate the purpose of the program of assessment, determine what must be assessed, choose tools fit for purpose, consider the stakes of assessments, and define processes for interpreting assessment data. In the process, we seek to offer a helpful guide or template for front-line clinical educators. We dispel some myths about programmatic assessment to help training programs as they look to design-or redesign-programs of assessment. In particular, we highlight the notion that programmatic assessment is not 'one size fits all'; rather, it is a system of assessment that results when shared common principles are considered and applied by individual programs as they plan and design their own bespoke model of programmatic assessment for CBME in their unique context.

The Dissolution of the Step 2 Clinical Skills Examination and the Duty of Medical Educators to Step Up the Effectiveness of Clinical Skills Assessment.

In this Invited Commentary, the authors explore the implications of the dissolution of the Step 2 Clinical Skills Examination (Step 2 CS) for medical student clinical skills assessment. The authors describe the need for medical educators (at both the undergraduate and graduate levels) to work collaboratively to improve medical student clinical skills assessment to assure the public that medical school graduates have the requisite skills to begin residency training. The authors outline 6 specific recommendations for how to capitalize on the discontinuation of Step 2 CS to improve clinical skills assessment: (1) defining national, end-of-clerkship, and transition-to-residency standards for required clinical skills and for levels of competence; (2) creating a national resource for standardized patient, augmented reality, and virtual reality assessments; (3) improving workplace-based assessment through local collaborations and national resources; (4) improving learner engagement in and coproduction of assessments; (5) requiring, as a new standard for accreditation, medical schools to establish and maintain competency committees; and (6) establishing a national registry of assessment data for research and evaluation. Together, these actions will help the medical education community earn the public's trust by enhancing the rigor of assessment to ensure the mastery of skills that are essential to providing safe, high-quality care for patients.

Assessment to Optimize Learning Strategies: A Qualitative Study of Student and Faculty Perceptions.

Phenomenon: The format of medical knowledge assessment can promote students' use of effective learning strategies from the learning sciences literature, such as elaboration, interleaving, retrieval practice, and distributed learning. Assessment format can also influence faculty teaching. Accordingly, our institution implemented a new assessment strategy in which pre-clerkship medical students answered weekly formative quizzes with constructed response questions (also referred to as open-ended questions) and multiple-choice questions in preparation for summative open-ended question examinations, to support students' use of recommended learning strategies. Our qualitative study explored medical student and faculty perceptions of this assessment strategy on learning and teaching. Approach: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 second-year medical students to explore their preparation for quizzes and summative examinations. We also interviewed 10 faculty responsible for writing and grading these assessments in the pre-clerkship foundational sciences curriculum regarding their approach to writing assessments and rubrics, and their perceptions of how their teaching may have changed with this assessment strategy. We analyzed interview transcripts using thematic analysis with a priori sensitizing concepts from the learning sciences literature. Findings: We identified four major themes characterizing student and faculty perceptions of weekly formative quizzes and summative OEQ examinations. Participants found that this assessment strategy helped (1) prioritize conceptual understanding, (2) simulate clinical problem solving, and (3) engage students and faculty in continuous improvement in their approach to learning or teaching. Faculty and students also recognized challenges and potential tradeoffs associated with these assessment formats. Participants identified (4) facilitators and barriers when implementing this assessment strategy. Insights: Our findings suggested that assessment of medical knowledge through weekly formative quizzes and summative open-ended question examinations can facilitate students' use of effective learning strategies. Faculty also recognized improvements in their teaching and in quality of assessment. This format of assessment also presented some challenges and potential tradeoffs and significant institutional resources were required for implementation.

From Grading to Assessment for Learning: A Qualitative Study of Student Perceptions Surrounding Elimination of Core Clerkship Grades and Enhanced Formative Feedback.

Problem: Medical students perceive honors grading during core clerkships as unfair and inequitable, and negatively impacting their learning and wellbeing. Eliminating honors grading, a powerful extrinsic motivator, and emphasizing formative feedback may address these problems and promote intrinsic motivation and learning. However, it is unknown how transitioning from honors to pass/fail grading with enhanced formative feedback in the core clerkship year may affect student learning experiences, wellbeing, and perceptions of the learning environment. Intervention: Core clerkship grading was transitioned from honors/pass/fail to pass/fail at one US medical school. In addition, the requirement for students to obtain formative supervisor feedback was formalized to twice per week. Context: This qualitative study utilized semi-structured interviews to explore the perceptions among core clerkship students of learning and assessment. Interview questions addressed motivation, wellbeing, learning behaviors, team dynamics, feedback, and student and supervisor attitudes regarding assessment changes. The authors analyzed data inductively using thematic analysis informed by sensitizing concepts related to theories of motivation (goal orientation theory and self-determination theory). Impact: Eighteen students participated, including five with experience in both honors-eligible and pass/fail clerkships. The authors identified three major themes in students' descriptions of the change in approach to assessment: student engagement in clerkships, wellbeing, and recognition of learning context. Student engagement subthemes included intrinsic motivation for patient care rather than performing; sense of agency over learning, including ability to set learning priorities, seek and receive feedback, take learning risks, and disagree with supervisors, and collaborative relationships with peers and team members. Positive wellbeing was characterized by low stress, sense of authenticity with team members, prioritized physical health, and attention to personal life. Learning context subthemes included recognition of variability of clerkship contexts with pass/fail grading mitigating fairness and equity concerns, support of the grading change from residents and some attendings, and implications surrounding future stress and residency selection. Lessons Learned: Students perceive a transition from honors grading to pass/fail with increased feedback as supporting their engagement in learning, intrinsic motivation, and wellbeing. Drivers of wellbeing appear to include students' feelings of control, achieved through the ability to seek learning opportunities, teaching, and constructive feedback without the perceived need to focus on impressing others. Ongoing evaluation of the consequences of this shift in assessment is needed.

The COVID-19 Pandemic as an Imperative to Advance Medical Student Assessment: Three Areas for Change.

Conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have disrupted clinical practice and all aspects of medical education. Yet the need to continue to train physicians to care for patients and communities is greater than ever. Medical educators are responding by adapting curricula in response to requirements for social distancing, changing availability of clinical learning opportunities, and limitations on testing center availability for examinations. These disruptions require a systems approach to ensure that learners achieve competence in preparation for advancement in training toward unsupervised practice. In this article, the authors assert that medical educators, obligated by current conditions to adapt educational experiences, should seize the opportunity presented by the pandemic to make needed changes in 3 areas aligned with competency-based medical education: focusing on outcomes, broadening the assessment toolbox, and improving the undergraduate medical education-to-graduate medical education (UME-to-GME) transition. Defined outcomes, as exemplified by entrustable professional activities, will enable curricular designers to shorten and adapt learning experiences by focusing on students' achievement of prespecified learning outcomes. Broadening the assessment toolbox entails capturing more and different assessment information about learners to provide a well-rounded view of their strengths and areas for growth in both traditional and novel settings, such as telehealth. Limitations on available data, such as licensing examination scores and clerkship grades, heighten the urgency to revise the system for the UME-to-GME transition by enhancing the quality and usability of information available to residency program directors. Educators should capitalize on the opportunity presented by altered conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic to make these needed changes to the educational system, to prepare physicians to provide health care and lead the health care system into the future.

A Narrative Study of Equity in Clinical Assessment Through the Antideficit Lens.

PURPOSE: Efforts to address inequities in medical education are centered on a dialogue of deficits that highlight negative underrepresented in medicine (UIM) learner experiences and lower performance outcomes. An alternative narrative explores perspectives on achievement and equity in assessment. This study sought to understand UIM learner perceptions of successes and equitable assessment practices. METHOD: Using narrative research, investigators selected a purposeful sample of self-identified UIM fourth-year medical students and senior-level residents and conducted semistructured interviews. Questions elicited personal stories of achievement during clinical training, clinical assessment practices that captured achievement, and equity in clinical assessment. Using re-storying and thematic analysis, investigators coded transcripts and synthesized data into themes and representative stories. RESULTS: Twenty UIM learners (6 medical students and 14 residents) were interviewed. Learners often thought about equity during clinical training and provided personal definitions of equity in assessment. Learners shared stories that reflected their achievements in patient care, favorable assessment outcomes, and growth throughout clinical training. Sound assessments that captured achievements included frequent observations with real-time feedback on predefined expectations by supportive, longitudinal clinical supervisors. Finally, equitable assessment systems were characterized as sound assessment systems that also avoided comparison to peers, used narrative assessment, assessed patient care and growth, trained supervisors to avoid bias, and acknowledged learner identity. CONCLUSIONS: UIM learners characterized equitable and sound assessment systems that captured achievements during clinical training. These findings guide future efforts to create an inclusive, fair, and equitable clinical assessment experience.

Medical Education's Wicked Problem: Achieving Equity in Assessment for Medical Learners.

Despite a lack of intent to discriminate, physicians educated in U.S. medical schools and residency programs often take actions that systematically disadvantage minority patients. The approach to assessment of learner performance in medical education can similarly disadvantage minority learners. The adoption of holistic admissions strategies to increase the diversity of medical training programs has not been accompanied by increases in diversity in honor societies, selective residency programs, medical specialties, and medical school faculty. These observations prompt justified concerns about structural and interpersonal bias in assessment. This manuscript characterizes equity in assessment as a "wicked problem" with inherent conflicts, uncertainty, dynamic tensions, and susceptibility to contextual influences. The authors review the underlying individual and structural causes of inequity in assessment. Using an organizational model, they propose strategies to achieve equity in assessment and drive institutional and systemic improvement based on clearly articulated principles. This model addresses the culture, systems, and assessment tools necessary to achieve equitable results that reflect stated principles. Three components of equity in assessment that can be measured and evaluated to confirm success include intrinsic equity (selection and design of assessment tools), contextual equity (the learning environment in which assessment occurs), and instrumental equity (uses of assessment data for learner advancement and selection and program evaluation). A research agenda to address these challenges and controversies and demonstrate reduction in bias and discrimination in medical education is presented.