The feasibility and acceptability of administering a telemedicine objective structured clinical exam as a solution for providing equivalent education to remote and rural learners.

INTRODUCTION: Although many medical schools incorporate distance learning into their curricula, assessing students at a distance can be challenging. While some assessments are relatively simple to administer to remote students, other assessments, such as objective structured clinical exams (OSCEs) are not. This article describes a means to more effectively and efficiently assess distance learners and evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the assessment. METHODS: We developed a teleOSCE, administered online in real time, to two cohorts of students on a rural clerkship rotation and assessed the feasibility and acceptability of using such an approach to assess medical students' clinical skills at rural locations. Project feasibility was defined as having development and implementation costs of less than $5000. Project acceptability was determined by analyzing student interview transcripts. A qualitative case study design framework was chosen due to the novel nature of the activity. RESULTS: The implementation cost of the teleOSCE was approximately US$1577.20, making it a feasible educational endeavor. Interview data indicated the teleOSCE was also acceptable to students. CONCLUSIONS: The teleOSCE format may be useful to other institutions as a method to centrally administer clinical skills exams for assessment of distance medical students.

Are They Prepared? Comparing Intern Milestone Performance of Accelerated 3-Year and 4-Year Medical Graduates.

PURPOSE: Accelerated 3-year programs (A3YPs) at medical schools were developed to address student debt and mitigate workforce shortage issues. This study investigated whether medical school length (3 vs 4 years) was associated with early residency performance. The primary research question was as follows: Are the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones (MS) attained by A3YP graduates comparable to graduates of traditional 4-year programs (T4YPs) at 6 and 12 months into internship? METHOD: The MS data from students entering U.S. medical schools in 2021 and 2022 from the 6 largest specialties were used: emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, general surgery, psychiatry, and pediatrics. Three-year and 4-year graduates were matched for analysis (2,899 matched learners: 182 in A3YPs and 2,717 in T4YPs). The study used a noninferiority study design to examine data trends between the study cohort (A3YP) and control cohort (T4YP). To account for medical school and residency program effects, the authors used cross-classified random-effects regression to account for clustering and estimate group differences. RESULTS: The mean Harmonized MS ratings for the midyear and end-year reporting periods showed no significant differences between the A3YP and T4YP groups (mean [SE] cross-classified coefficient = 0.01 [0.02], P = .77). Mean MS ratings across internal medicine MS for the midyear and end-year reporting periods showed no significant differences between the A3YP and T4YP groups (mean [SE] cross-classified coefficient = -0.03 [0.03], P = .31). Similarly, for family medicine, there were no statistically significant differences between the A3YP and T4YP groups (mean [SE] cross-classified coefficient = 0.01 [0.02], P = .96). CONCLUSIONS: For the specialties studied, there were no significant differences in MS performance between 3-year and 4-year graduates at 6 and 12 months into internship. These results support comparable efficacy of A3YPs in preparing medical students for residency.

Change in Oregon maternity care workforce after malpractice premium subsidy implementation.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine the proportion of maternity care providers who continue to deliver babies in Oregon; (2) to determine the important factors relating to the decision to discontinue maternity care services; and (3) to examine how the rural liability subsidy is affecting rural maternity care providers' ability to provide maternity care services. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed all obstetrical care providers in Oregon in 2002 and 2006. Survey data, supplemented with state administrative data, were analyzed for changes in provision of maternity care, reasons for stopping maternity care, and effect of the malpractice premium subsidy on practice. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Only 36.6% of responding clinicians qualified to deliver babies were actually providing maternity care in Oregon in 2006, significantly lower than the proportion (47.8%) found in 2002. Cost of malpractice premiums remains the most frequently cited reason for stopping maternity care, followed by lifestyle issues. Receipt of the malpractice subsidy was not associated with continuing any maternity services. CONCLUSIONS: Oregon continues to lose maternity care providers. A state program subsidizing the liability premiums of rural maternity care providers does not appear effective at keeping rural providers delivering babies. Other policies to encourage continuation of maternity care need to be considered.