Teaching scripts via smartphone app facilitate resident-led teaching of medical students.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that resident physicians are the most meaningful teachers during the clinical clerkships of third-year medical students (MS3s). Unfortunately, residents often feel unprepared for this crucial role. The pediatrics clerkship at our institution identified a paucity in the frequency of resident-led teaching with MS3s. Lack of confidence, suboptimal teaching space, and insufficient time were cited as the most significant barriers. To enhance resident-led teaching of MS3s, we created teaching scripts of general pediatrics topics accessible via a smartphone application (app). METHODS: Prior to the implementation of the app, MS3s and pediatric residents were surveyed on clerkship teaching practices. From May 2017 through July 2018, pediatric residents working with MS3s were introduced to the app, with both groups queried on resident teaching habits afterward. We compared pre-intervention and post-intervention data of time spent teaching, teaching frequency, and a ranking of pediatric resident teaching performance compared to residents of other MS3 core clerkships. RESULTS: 44 out of 90 residents (49%) responded to a pre-intervention survey on baseline teaching habits. 49 out of 61 residents (80%) completed our post-intervention survey. Pre-intervention, 75% (33/44) of residents reported spending less than 5 min per teaching session on average. Post-intervention, 67% (33/49) reported spending more than 5 min (p < 0.01). 25% (11/44) of residents reported teaching at least once per day pre-intervention, versus 55% (27/49, p = 0.12) post-intervention. Post-intervention data demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between app use and increased frequency of teaching (p < 0.01). The MS3 average ranking of pediatric resident teaching increased from 2.4 to 3.4 out of 6 (p < 0.05) after this intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Residency programs looking to reform resident-led teaching, particularly of residents early in their training, should consider our novel approach. In addition to addressing barriers to teaching and creating a platform for near-peer teaching, it is adaptable to any specialty or learner level. Future direction includes developing objective measures for teaching performance and content proficiency to better assess our intervention as an educational curriculum, as well as further investigation of the intervention as a controlled trial.

Current Practices in the Evaluation of Global Developmental Delay/Intellectual Disability: A Nationwide Survey of Child Neurologists.

Background and Objectives: Global developmental delay/intellectual disability (GDD/ID) are among the most common neurologic conditions evaluated by child neurologists in the United States. No recent neurology-specific guidelines for GDD/ID diagnostic evaluation exist, which could lead to practice variability. We assessed current practices in GDD/ID diagnostic evaluation among US child neurologists, including drivers of exome sequencing (ES). Methods: A 19-item online anonymous survey was distributed between April 2021 and September 2021 to 953 eligible child neurologists by email and/or online platforms through the American Academy of Neurology and Child Neurology Society. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine the predictors of sending ES as a part of GDD/ID diagnostic evaluation. Results: Of 172 unique respondents, 69.2% reported almost always obtaining a chromosomal microarray while 10.5% reported almost always pursuing ES. However, 65.1% identified ES as a first-tier diagnostic test for GDD/ID. Clinical practice demographics independently associated with a higher likelihood of pursuit of ES were more years of experience (p = 0.002) and more people with GDD/ID in one's practice (p < 0.001). Inclusion of brain MRI, EEG, and metabolic laboratory values as part of GDD/ID diagnostic evaluation varied widely. Modalities to screen for treatable disorders (ES or metabolic laboratory values) were reported to be consistently used by only 24.8% of respondents. Respondents identified key barriers to the pursuit of ES including the need for genetics referral/genetic counseling and insurance coverage/out-of-pocket cost. Discussion: Among US child neurologists, there is marked practice variability in GDD/ID diagnostic evaluation across multiple types of testing, raising concern for disparities in care. There is a widespread lack of screening for treatable causes of ID, which may lead to missed diagnoses and avoidable morbidity. Despite most respondents' support for ES as a first-tier diagnostic test for GDD/ID, only a small minority routinely pursue ES as a part of their evaluation. Provider-level factors (years of experience, percent of patients with GDD/ID) and system-level barriers (access to genetics expertise, lack of insurance coverage) were determinants of the frequency of use of ES. These findings suggest the need for updated consensus guidelines and advocacy/education to improve child neurologists' ability to pursue ES for GDD/ID.

Social Determinants of Genetics Referral and Completion Rates Among Child Neurology Patients.

Objective: To investigate clinical, social, and systems-level determinants predictive of genetics clinic referral and completion of genetics clinic visits among child neurology patients. Methods: Electronic health record data were extracted from patients 0-18 years old who were evaluated in child neurology clinics at a single tertiary care institution between July 2018 to January 2020. Variables aligned with the Health Equity Implementation Framework. Referral and referral completion rates to genetics and cardiology clinics were compared among Black vs White patients using bivariate analysis. Demographic variables associated with genetics clinic referral and visit completion were identified using logistic regressions. Results: In a cohort of 11,371 child neurology patients, 304 genetics clinic referrals and 82 cardiology clinic referrals were placed. In multivariate analysis of patients with Black or White ethnoracial identity (n=10,601), genetics clinic referral rates did not differ by race, but were significantly associated with younger age, rural address, neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis, number of neurology clinic visits, and provider type. The only predictors of genetics clinic visit completion number of neurology clinic visits and race/ethnicity, with White patients being twice as likely as Black patients to complete the visit. Cardiology clinic referrals and visit completion did not differ by race/ethnicity. Interpretation: Although race/ethnicity was not associated with differences in genetics clinic referral rates, White patients were twice as likely as Black patients to complete a genetics clinic visit after referral. Further work is needed to determine whether this is due to systemic/structural racism, differences in attitudes toward genetic testing, or other factors.