Accuracy of Financial Disclosures in US-Based Rheumatology Journals.

OBJECTIVE: Transparency of disclosure in publication is necessary for readers to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (PCOIs). Past studies of accuracy of disclosure in rheumatology journals have focused exclusively on clinical practice guidelines and not research works. We assessed discrepancy in reporting PCOIs in clinically oriented manuscripts published in the three top-ranked (by impact factor) US-based general rheumatology journals. METHODS: We reviewed disclosures provided by first, second, and last authors of 50 published clinically oriented articles in each of the three top-ranked general US rheumatology journals. For each author, we extracted payment reports from the Open Payments Database (OPD) related to consulting fees, honoraria, and speaker or faculty compensation. We defined a PCOI as a payment received from a company with an ongoing clinical trial or a medication on the market related to the manuscript's subject matter within the 36 months before the online publication date. We additionally analyzed each author individually to determine whether their reported disclosures matched PCOIs from the OPD. RESULTS: Of 150 articles analyzed, 101 included authors with PCOIs. Ninety-two of these 101 publications (92%) contained inaccurate (non- or under-) disclosures. Among 135 authors with PCOIs, 118 reported inaccurately (87%). All 14 articles that published clinical trial results (and all 23 of their qualifying authors) had disclosure inaccuracies. CONCLUSION: Inaccurate financial disclosure by authors remains an issue in clinically oriented research studies reported in top rheumatology journals. Improved community education and firmer expectations would permit readers to better assess any possible impact of PCOIs on publications.

Rheumatology Research Foundation Clinician Scholar Educator Award: Fifteen Years Promoting Rheumatology Educators and Education.

OBJECTIVE: The Rheumatology Research Foundation's Clinician Scholar Educator (CSE) award is a 3-year career development award supporting medical education research while providing opportunities for mentorship and collaboration. Our objective was to document the individual and institutional impact of the award since its inception, as well as its promise to strengthen the subspecialty of rheumatology. METHODS: All 60 CSE Award recipients were surveyed periodically. Fifty-six of those 60 awardees (90%) responded to requests for survey information that included post-award activities, promotions, and further funding. Data were also collected from yearly written progress reports for each grant. RESULTS: Of the total CSE recipients to date, 48 of 60 (80%) are adult rheumatologists, 11 of 60 (18%) are pediatric rheumatologists, and 1 is an adult and pediatric rheumatologist. Two-thirds of survey respondents spend up to 30% of their total time in educational activities, and one-third spend greater than 30%. Thirty-one of the 60 CSE recipients (52%) have published a total of 86 medical education papers. Twenty-six of 52 (50%) had received an academic promotion following the award. Eleven awardees earned advanced degrees. CONCLUSION: We describe the creation and evolution of a grant program from a medical subspecialty society foundation and the impact on producing education research, individual identity formation, and ongoing support for educators. This community of rheumatology scholar educators now serves as an important resource at the national level for the American College of Rheumatology and its membership. We believe that this grant may serve as a model for other medical societies that want to promote education scholarship and leadership within their specialties.

Fellow use of medical jargon correlates inversely with patient and observer perceptions of professionalism: results of a rheumatology OSCE (ROSCE) using challenging patient scenarios.

The NYC Rheumatology Objective Structured Clinical Examination (NYC-ROSCE) is held annually to assess fellow competencies. We recently redesigned our OSCE to better assess subspecialty trainee communication skills and professionalism by developing scenarios in which the patients encountered were psychosocially or medically complex. The objective of this study is to identify which types of verbal and non-verbal skills are most important in the perception of professionalism in the patient-physician interaction. The 2012-2013 NYC-ROSCEs included a total of 53 fellows: 55 MD evaluators from 7 NYC rheumatology training programs (Hospital for Special Surgery-Weill Cornell (HSS), SUNY/Downstate, NYU, Einstein, Columbia, Mount Sinai, and North Shore/Long Island Jewish (NSLIJ)), and 55 professional actors/standardized patients participated in 5 stations. Quantitative fellow performance assessments were made on the following: maintaining composure; partnering with the patient; honesty; professionalism; empathy; and accountability. Free-text comments were solicited regarding specific strengths and weaknesses. A total of 53/53 eligible (100 %) fellows were evaluated. MD evaluators rated fellows lower for professionalism than did the standardized patients (6.8 ± 0.6 vs. 7.4 ± 0.8, p = 0.05), suggesting that physicians and patients view professionalism somewhat differently. Fellow self-evaluations for professionalism (6.6 ± 1.2) were concordant with those of the MD evaluators. Ratings of empathy by fellows themselves (6.6 ± 1.0), MD evaluators (6.6 ± 0.7), and standardized patients (6.6 ± 1.1) agreed closely. Jargon use, frequently cited by evaluators, showed a moderate association with lower professionalism ratings by both MD evaluators and patients. Psychosocially challenging patient encounters in the NYC-ROSCE permitted critical assessment of the patient-centered traits contributing to impressions of professionalism and indicate that limiting medical jargon is an important component of the competency of professionalism.

The New York City Rheumatology Objective Structured Clinical Examination: five-year data demonstrates its validity, usefulness as a unique rating tool, objectivity, and sensitivity to change.

OBJECTIVE: Traditional means of testing rheumatology fellows do not adequately assess some skills that are required to practice medicine well, such as humanistic qualities, communication skills, or professionalism. Institution of the New York City Rheumatology Objective Structured Clinical Examination (ROSCE) and our sequential 5 years of experience have provided us with a unique opportunity to assess its usefulness and objectivity as a rheumatology assessment tool. METHODS: Prior to taking the examination, all of the fellows were rated by their program directors. Fellows from the participating institutions then underwent a multistation patient-interactive examination observed and rated by patient actors and faculty raters. Assessments were recorded by all of the participants using separate but overlapping sets of instruments testing the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core competencies of patient care, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, and overall medical knowledge. RESULTS: Although the program directors tended to rate their fellows more highly than the ROSCE raters, typically there was agreement between the program directors and the ROSCE faculty in distinguishing between the highest- and lowest- performing fellows. The ROSCE faculty and patient actor assessments of individual trainees were notable for a high degree of concordance, both quantitatively and qualitatively. CONCLUSION: The ROSCE provides a unique opportunity to obtain a patient-centered assessment of fellows' ACGME-mandated competencies that traditional knowledge-based examinations, such as the rheumatology in-service examination, cannot measure. The ability of the ROSCE to provide a well-rounded and objective assessment suggests that it should be considered an important component of the rheumatology training director's toolbox.

SOMOSAT: Utility of a web-based self-assessment tool in undergraduate medical education.

BACKGROUND: Relatively few studies have rigorously assessed the effectiveness of computer-based self-assessment in medical education. AIM: To assess whether an online self-assessment tool can be an effective adjunct to a traditional curriculum for second-year medical students. METHODS: The NYU School of Medicine Online Self-Assessment Tool (SOMOSAT) consists of >450 multiple-choice questions spanning disciplines of internal medicine, administered as separate modules focused on individual organ systems. Questions are coded on multiple dimensions, permitting second-year medical students to receive low-stakes, highly specific feedback regarding their knowledge and performance. Students can also review their answers to guide future study. We employed data collected during SOMOSAT operation to assess its utility and effectiveness. RESULTS: Overall, SOMOSAT accurately predicted student performance on future exams. SOMOSAT participants generally performed better than non-participants on subsequent graded course examinations (p < 0.05). Students using SOMOSAT subsequently experienced greater improvement in areas in which they initially performed poorly, compared with those in which they initially performed well. Students reported that SOMOSAT was most helpful in filling knowledge gaps, and providing opportunities to practice exam-style questions. CONCLUSION: The ability of SOMOSAT to enhance learning and exam performance suggests that web-based self-assessment tools can be effective adjuncts to traditional educational methods.