Exploring Clinical Lessons Learned by Experienced Hospitalists from Diagnostic Errors and Successes.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors cause significant patient harm. The clinician's ultimate goal is to achieve diagnostic excellence in order to serve patients safely. This can be accomplished by learning from both errors and successes in patient care. However, the extent to which clinicians grow and navigate diagnostic errors and successes in patient care is poorly understood. Clinically experienced hospitalists, who have cared for numerous acutely ill patients, should have great insights from their successes and mistakes to inform others striving for excellence in patient care. OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize clinical lessons learned by experienced hospitalists from diagnostic errors and successes. DESIGN: A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect qualitative data from hospitalists at five independently administered hospitals in the Mid-Atlantic area from February to June 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 12 academic and 12 community-based hospitalists with ≥ 5 years of clinical experience. APPROACH: A constructivist qualitative approach was used and "reflexive thematic analysis" of interview transcripts was conducted to identify themes and patterns of meaning across the dataset. RESULTS: Five themes were generated from the data based on clinical lessons learned by hospitalists from diagnostic errors and successes. The ideas included appreciating excellence in clinical reasoning as a core skill, connecting with patients and other members of the health care team to be able to tap into their insights, reflecting on the diagnostic process, committing to growth, and prioritizing self-care. CONCLUSIONS: The study identifies key lessons learned from the errors and successes encountered in patient care by clinically experienced hospitalists. These findings may prove helpful for individuals and groups that are authentically committed to moving along the continuum from diagnostic competence towards excellence.

"I Had No Idea This Happened": Electronic Feedback on Clinical Reasoning for Hospitalists.

BACKGROUND: Feedback on the diagnostic process has been proposed as a method of improving clinical reasoning and reducing diagnostic errors. Barriers to the delivery and receipt of feedback include time constraints and negative reactions. Given the shift toward asynchronous, digital communication, it is possible that electronic feedback ("e-feedback") could overcome these barriers. OBJECTIVES: We developed an e-feedback system for hospitalists around episodes of care escalation (transfers to ICU and rapid responses). The intervention was evaluated by measuring hospitalists' satisfaction with e-feedback and commitment to change. DESIGN: A qualitative survey study conducted at one academic medical center from February to June 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalists - physicians and advanced practice providers. APPROACH: Two hospitalists, one internal medicine resident, and a nurse reviewed escalations of care on the hospitalist service each week using the Revised Safer Dx framework. Confidential feedback was emailed to the hospitalists involved in the patient's care. Hospitalists were asked to rate and explain their satisfaction with the e-feedback and whether they might modify their clinical practice based on the e-feedback. The open-ended text comments from the hospitalists were analyzed using a thematic analysis framework. RESULTS: Forty-nine out of fifty-eight hospitalists agreed to participate. One hundred five out of one hundred twenty-four (85%) e-feedback surveys that were sent were returned by the hospitalists. Hospitalists were highly satisfied with 67% (n = 70) of the e-feedback reports, moderately satisfied with 23% (n = 24), and not satisfied with 10% (n = 11). Six themes were identified based on analysis of the comments. Themes related to satisfaction with the intervention included appreciation for learning about patient outcomes, general appreciation of feedback on clinical care, and importance of detailed and specific feedback. Themes related to changing clinical practice included reflection on clinical decision-making, value of new insights, and anticipated future behavior change. CONCLUSIONS: E-feedback was well received by hospitalists. Their perspectives offer useful insights for enhancing electronic feedback interventions.

Group concept mapping for health professions education scholarship.

While explicit conceptual models help to inform research, they are left out of much of the health professions education (HPE) literature. One reason may be the limited understanding about how to develop conceptual models with intention and rigor. Group concept mapping (GCM) is a mixed methods conceptualization approach that has been used to develop frameworks for planning and evaluation, but GCM has not been common in HPE. The purpose of this article is to describe GCM in order to make it more accessible for HPE scholars. We recount the origins and evolution of GCM and summarize its core features: GCM can combine multiple stakeholder perspectives in a systematic and inclusive manner to generate explicit conceptual models. Based on the literature and prior experience using GCM, we detail seven steps in GCM: (1) brainstorming ideas to a specific "focus prompt," (2) preparing ideas by removing duplicates and editing for consistency, (3) sorting ideas according to conceptual similarity, (4) generating the point map through quantitative analysis, (5) interpreting cluster map options, (6) summarizing the final concept map, and (7) reporting and using the map. We provide illustrative examples from HPE studies and compare GCM to other conceptualization methods. GCM has great potential to add to the myriad of methodologies open to HPE researchers. Its alignment with principles of diversity and inclusivity, as well as the need to be systematic in applying theoretical and conceptual frameworks to practice, make it a method well suited for the complexities of contemporary HPE scholarship.

Seeing with greater clarity: Stakeholder ratings of blind spots in U.S. medical education.

BACKGROUND: Although medical education is affected by numerous blind spots, there is limited evidence to determine which blind spots to prioritize. METHODS: In summer 2022, we surveyed stakeholders from U.S. medical education who had identified 9 domains and 72 subdomains of blind spots. Respondents used 4-point Likert-type scales to rate the extent and magnitude of problems caused for each domain and subdomain. Respondents also provided comments for which we did content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 23/27 (85%) stakeholders responded. The majority of respondents rated each blind spot domain as moderate-major in both extent and problems they cause. Patient perspectives and voices that are not heard, valued, or understood was the domain with the most stakeholders rating extent (n = 20, 87%) and problems caused (n = 23, 100%) as moderate or major. Admitting and selecting learners likely to practice in settings of highest need was the subdomain with the most stakeholders rating extent (n = 21, 91%) and problems caused (n = 22, 96%) as moderate or major. Respondents' comments suggested blind spots may depend on context and persist because of hierarchies and tradition. DISCUSSION: We found blind spots differed in relative importance. These data may inform further research and direct interventions to improve medical education.

Blind spots in medical education - International perspectives.

BACKGROUND: All individuals and groups have blind spots that can create problems if unaddressed. The goal of this study was to examine blind spots in medical education from international perspectives. METHODS: From December 2022 to March 2023, we distributed an electronic survey through international networks of medical students, postgraduate trainees, and medical educators. Respondents named blind spots affecting their medical education system and then rated nine blind spot domains from a study of U.S. medical education along five-point Likert-type scales (1 = much less attention needed; 5 = much more attention needed). We tested for differences between blind spot ratings by respondent groups. We also analyzed the blind spots that respondents identified to determine those not previously described and performed content analysis on open-ended responses about blind spot domains. RESULTS: There were 356 respondents from 88 countries, including 127 (44%) educators, 80 (28%) medical students, and 33 (11%) postgraduate trainees. At least 80% of respondents rated each blind spot domain as needing 'more' or 'much more' attention; the highest was 88% for 'Patient perspectives and voices that are not heard, valued, or understood.' In analyses by gender, role in medical education, World Bank country income level, and region, a mean difference of 0.5 was seen in only five of the possible 279 statistical comparisons. Of 885 blind spots documented, new blind spot areas related to issues that crossed national boundaries (e.g. international standards) and the sufficiency of resources to support medical education. Comments about the nine blind spot domains illustrated that cultural, health system, and governmental elements influenced how blind spots are manifested across different settings. DISCUSSION: There may be general agreement throughout the world about blind spots in medical education that deserve more attention. This could establish a basis for coordinated international effort to allocate resources and tailor interventions that advance medical education.

What makes an article a must read in medical education?

BACKGROUND: The dissemination of published scholarship is intended to bring new evidence and ideas to a wide audience. However, the increasing number of articles makes it challenging to determine where to focus one's attention. This study describes factors that may influence decisions to read and recommend a medical education article. METHODS: Authors analyzed data collected from March 2021 through September 2022 during a monthly process to identify "Must Read" articles in medical education. An international team of health sciences educators, learners, and researchers voted on titles and abstracts to advance articles to full text review. Full texts were rated using five criteria: relevance, methodology, readability, originality, and whether it addressed a critical issue in medical education. At an end-of-month meeting, 3-4 articles were chosen by consensus as "Must Read" articles. Analyses were used to explore the associations of article characteristics and ratings with Must Read selection. RESULTS: Over a period of 19 months, 7487 articles from 856 journals were screened, 207 (2.8%) full texts were evaluated, and 62 (0.8%) were chosen as Must Reads. During screening, 3976 articles (53.1%) received no votes. BMC Medical Education had the largest number of articles at screening (n = 1181, 15.8%). Academic Medicine had the largest number as Must Reads (n = 22, 35.5%). In logistic regressions adjusting for the effect of individual reviewers, all rating criteria were independently associated with selection as a Must Read (p < 0.05), with methodology (OR 1.44 (95%CI = 1.23-1.69) and relevance (OR 1.43 (95%CI = 1.20-1.70)) having the highest odds ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of the published medical education articles did not appeal to a diverse group of potential readers; this represents a missed opportunity to make an impact and potentially wasted effort. Our findings suggest opportunities to enhance value in the production and dissemination of medical education scholarship.

Gender differences in bullying among internal medicine residents.

PURPOSE: To describe gender differences in experienced types of bullying, and resulting personal consequences, among internal medicine (IM) residents. METHODS: Participants in this cross-sectional study included 21 212 IM trainees who completed a voluntary survey with their 2016 in-training exam that assessed bullying during residency training. The 2875 (13.6% of) trainees who reported experiencing bullying on a screening question were asked for additional details about types of bullying experienced and resulting personal consequences. RESULTS: Female and male trainees experienced bullying at similar rates (47% versus 53%, P = .08). Gender differences were seen in both the type of bullying experienced and the resulting personal consequences. Female trainees were more likely than their male counterparts to report bullying characterized as verbal (83% versus 77%, P < .001) and sexual (5% versus 2%, P < .001), whereas male trainees were more likely to experience physical (6% versus 4%, P = .03) and "other" bullying types (27% versus 22%, P < .001). Female trainees were more likely to report negative personal consequences than male trainees, and the most common resultant sequela reported was feeling burned out (63% versus 51%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Gender differences exist in both the types and consequences of bullying experienced among this national sample of IM residents. These results should be considered by programs and institutions that are hoping to optimize the culture of their workplace and enhance safety in the learning environment.

Using Group Concept Mapping to Explore Medical Education's Blind Spots.

PHENOMENON: All individuals and groups have blind spots that can lead to mistakes, perpetuate biases, and limit innovations. The goal of this study was to better understand how blind spots manifest in medical education by seeking them out in the U.S. APPROACH: We conducted group concept mapping (GCM), a research method that involves brainstorming ideas, sorting them according to conceptual similarity, generating a point map that represents consensus among sorters, and interpreting the cluster maps to arrive at a final concept map. Participants in this study were stakeholders from the U.S. medical education system (i.e., learners, educators, administrators, regulators, researchers, and commercial resource producers) and those from the broader U.S. health system (i.e., patients, nurses, public health professionals, and health system administrators). All participants brainstormed ideas to the focus prompt: "To educate physicians who can meet the health needs of patients in the U.S. health system, medical education should become less blind to (or pay more attention to) …" Responses to this prompt were reviewed and synthesized by our study team to prepare them for sorting, which was done by a subset of participants from the medical education system. GCM software combined sorting solutions using a multidimensional scaling analysis to produce a point map and performed cluster analyses to generate cluster solution options. Our study team reviewed and interpreted all cluster solutions from five to 25 clusters to decide upon the final concept map. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven stakeholders shared 298 blind spots during brainstorming. To decrease redundancy, we reduced these to 208 in preparation for sorting. Ten stakeholders independently sorted the blind spots, and the final concept map included 9 domains and 72 subdomains of blind spots that related to (1) admissions processes; (2) teaching practices; (3) assessment and curricular designs; (4) inequities in education and health; (5) professional growth and identity formation; (6) patient perspectives; (7) teamwork and leadership; (8) health systems care models and financial practices; and (9) government and business policies. INSIGHTS: Soliciting perspectives from diverse stakeholders to identify blind spots in medical education uncovered a wide array of issues that deserve more attention. The concept map may also be used to help prioritize resources and direct interventions that can stimulate change and bring medical education into better alignment with the health needs of patients and communities.

The selection of chief residents across residency programs at a large academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Chief residents have a unique role in graduate medical education (GME). They not only connect residents with program and hospital leadership, but also advocate for the wellbeing and educational priorities of trainees. Previous studies have focused on describing the characteristics of chief residents (CRs), however little is known about how CRs are selected across GME programs. METHODS: One-on-one semi-structured interviews with all (n = 21) GME program directors at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine were conducted from January to March 2022. Investigators independently coded the transcripts using an inductive approach to categorize meaningful segments of text; this culminated in the identification of explanatory themes. RESULTS: From discussions with 21 program directors, four themes were identified: (1) identifying candidates: timing, recruitment, nominations, as well as desirable attributes and data considered; (2) applications: expression of intent and participation in interviews; (3) selections: voting, discussions leading to consensus, and program director intimately involved in the choice(s); and (4) confidence in processes and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide a deeper understanding of the nuances associated with the selection of CRs. It is hoped that the descriptions of the similarities and differences across GME programs will prompt reflection about what is done at one institution such that all programs can consider what are the best practices to serve their individual goals and needs.

Clinical excellence in child and adolescent psychiatry: examples from the published literature.

There has been growing interest in the past century in improving understanding of the development and treatment of psychopathology of children, with increasing government funding of research in the past two decades. However, child and adolescent psychiatry excellence in clinical care has not been well-documented in the existing literature. This article provides examples of clinical excellence in paediatric mental health to supplement existing guidelines for the clinical practice of paediatric psychiatry. A review of the literature identified 204 unique peer-reviewed articles that were then further evaluated for applicability and relevance to the definition of clinical excellence as outlined by the Miller-Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence (MCACE). Cases were then identified and selected for each domain of clinical excellence as they apply to child and adolescent psychiatry and to provide a model for patient care. KeypointsClinical excellence in child and adolescent psychiatry has not previously been defined or extensively documented.The Miller-Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence (MCACE) has developed a systematic method to measuring excellence in clinical care and created a definition of clinical excellence.The MCACE defined the domains of clinical excellence as communication and interpersonal skills, professionalism and humanism, diagnostic acumen, skilful negotiation of the healthcare system, knowledge, scholarly approach to clinical practice, exhibiting a passion for patient care and modelling clinical excellence, and collaborating with investigators to advance science and discovery.There are numerous case examples in the literature that represent mastery in paediatric psychiatry in these areas.Clinicians in paediatric mental health will likely benefit from future research on evidence-based approaches to training and education in these domains of clinical excellence.

Review of the published literature to characterise clinical excellence in COVID-19 care.

COVID-19 continues to be a major source of global morbidity and mortality. It abruptly stressed healthcare systems early in 2020 and the pressures continue. Devastating hardships have been endured by individuals, families and communities; the losses will be felt for years to come. As healthcare professionals and organisations stepped up to respond to the overwhelming number of cases, it is understandable that the focus has been primarily on coping with the quantity of the demand. During a pandemic, it is not surprising that few papers have drawn attention to the quality of the care delivered to those afflicted with illness. Despite the challenges, clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 have risen to the occasion. This manuscript highlights aspirational examples from the published literature of thoughtful and superb care of patients with COVID-19 using an established framework for clinical excellence (formulated by the Miller-Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence).

The Current State of Journal Clubs in Psychiatry Residency Programs: Results from a National Survey of Program Directors.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate journal club prevalence, implementation, and perceived effectiveness among psychiatry residency program directors in order to highlight best practices. METHODS: The authors distributed a 44-item thoughtfully designed and peer-reviewed questionnaire electronically via Qualtrics to 235 accredited U.S. psychiatry residency program directors identified using the American Medical Association database. RESULTS: Eighty-nine programs (38%) responded. Of these, 83 (93%) had a journal club. Journal clubs were mandatory in 80 programs (96%), met biweekly or monthly in 62 programs (75%), and lasted 46-60 min in 66 programs (80%). Twenty-three programs (28%) offered a list of articles to choose from, and 22 programs (27%) provided a critical appraisal tool. Only 7 programs (8%) measured learner outcomes from journal clubs. Respondents believed that promoting lifelong learning and practicing evidence-based psychiatry were the most relevant educational goals of journal club (2.57 and 2.51 on a Likert scale of 0 to 3). Journal club's effectiveness in achieving those goals was believed to be lower (2.16 and 2.09). CONCLUSIONS: Journal clubs are common in U.S. psychiatry residency programs and tend to follow a traditional format. In order to boost journal club's effectiveness in achieving the desired educational goals, more programs might elect to infuse elements known to augment learning.

Public Attitudes Regarding Hospitals and Physicians Encouraging Donations From Grateful Patients.

Importance: Philanthropy is an increasingly important source of support for health care institutions. There is little empirical evidence to inform ethical guidelines. Objective: To assess public attitudes regarding specific practices used by health care institutions to encourage philanthropic donations from grateful patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based sample representative of the US population, a survey solicited opinions from a primary cohort representing the general population and 3 supplemental cohorts (with high income, cancer, and with heart disease, respectively). Exposures: Web-based questionnaire. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive analyses (with percentages weighted to make the sample demographically representative of the US population) evaluated respondents' attitudes regarding the acceptability of strategies hospitals may use to identify, solicit, and thank donors; perceptions of the effect of physicians discussing donations with their patients; and opinions regarding gift use and stewardship. Results: Of 831 individuals targeted for the general population sample, 513 (62%) completed surveys, of whom 246 (48.0%) were women and 345 (67.3%) non-Hispanic white. In the weighted sample, 47.0% (95% CI, 42.3%-51.7%) responded that physicians giving patient names to hospital fundraising staff after asking patients' permission was definitely or probably acceptable; 8.5% (95% CI, 5.7%-11.2%) endorsed referring without asking permission. Of the participants, 79.5% (95% CI, 75.6%-83.4%) reported it acceptable for physicians to talk to patients about donating if patients have brought it up; 14.2% (95% CI, 10.9%-17.6%) reported it acceptable when patients have not brought it up; 9.9% (95% CI, 7.1%-12.8%) accepted hospital development staff performing wealth screening using publicly available data to identify patients capable of large donations. Of the participants, 83.2% (95% CI, 79.5%-86.9%) agreed that physicians talking with their patients about donating may interfere with the patient-physician relationship. For a hypothetical patient who donated $1 million, 50.1% (95% CI, 45.4%-54.7%) indicated it would be acceptable for the hospital to show thanks by providing nicer hospital rooms, 26.0% (95% CI, 21.9%-30.1%) by providing expedited appointments, and 19.8% (95% CI, 16.1%-23.5%) by providing physicians' cell phone numbers. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of participants drawn from the general US population, a substantial proportion did not endorse legally allowable approaches for identifying, engaging, and thanking patient-donors.

Osler Centenary Papers: Would Sir William Osler be a role model for medical trainees and physicians today?

If Sir William Osler were alive and practising as one of our contemporary colleagues, would he be viewed as a role model by medical trainees and other physicians? Recently published literature has sought to define clinical excellence; this characterisation of physician performance establishes a context in which role models in medicine can be appraised. Building on this framework, we present rich anecdotes and quotes from Sir William Osler himself, his colleagues, and his students to consider whether Osler would have been regarded as a role model for clinical excellence today. This paper illustrates convincingly that William Osler indeed personified clinical excellence and would have been appreciated as a consummate role model if he were alive and on a medical school's faculty today. However, a century has passed since his death, and he is not sufficiently visible today to serve as a role model to modern medical trainees and physicians. Moreover, we speculate that Osler himself would not have wanted to be a role model for today's trainees, as he emphasised that medicine is best learned from teachers at the bedside-a place where he cannot be. Reanimating Osler through rich stories and inspiring quotes, and translating his example of clinical excellence into modern clinical practice, can remind us all to carry Oslerian virtues with us in our professional work.

Questioning Style and Pimping in Clinical Education: A Quantitative Score Derived from a Survey of Internal Medicine Teaching Faculty.

Construct: Pimping is a controversial pedagogical technique in medicine, and there is a tension between pimping being considered as "value adding" in some circumstances versus always unacceptable. Consequently, faculty differ in their attitudes toward pimping, and such differences may be measurable and used to inform future research regarding the impact of pimping on learner outcomes. BACKGROUND: Despite renewed attention in medical education on creating a supportive learning environment, there is a dearth of prior research on pimping. We sought to characterize faculty who are more aggressive in their questioning style (i.e., those with a "pimper" phenotype) from those who are less threatening. APPROACH: This study was conducted between December 2015 and September 2016 at Johns Hopkins University. We created a 13-item questionnaire assessing faculty perceptions on pimping as a pedagogical technique. We surveyed all medicine faculty (n = 150) who had attended on inpatient teaching services at two university-affiliated hospitals over the prior 2 years. Then, using responses to the faculty survey, we developed a numeric "pimping score" designed to characterize faculty into "pimper" (those with scores in the upper quartile of the range) and "nonpimper" phenotypes. RESULTS: The response rate was 84%. Although almost half of the faculty reported that being pimped helped them in their own learning (45%), fewer reported that pimping was effective in their own teaching practice (20%). The pimping score was normally distributed across a range of 13-42, with a mean of 24 and a 75th percentile cutoff of 28 or greater. Younger faculty, male participants, specialists, and those reporting lower quality of life had higher pimping score values, all p < .05. Faculty who openly endorsed favorable views about the educational value of pimping had sevenfold higher odds of being characterized as "pimpers" using our numeric pimping score (p ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of a quantitative pimping score may have relevance for training programs concerned about the learning environment in clinical settings and may inform future research on the impact of pimping on learning outcomes.

Physician Perception of Pay Fairness and its Association with Work Satisfaction, Intent to Leave Practice, and Personal Health.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians generally earn less than specialists. Studies of other occupations have identified perception of pay fairness as a predictor of work- and life-related outcomes. We evaluated whether physicians' pay fairness perceptions were associated with their work satisfaction, turnover intention, and personal health. METHODS: Three thousand five hundred eighty-nine physicians were surveyed. Agreement with "my total compensation is fair" was used to assess pay fairness perceptions. Total compensation was self-reported, and we used validated measures of work satisfaction, likelihood of leaving current practice, and health status. Hierarchical logistic regressions were used to assess the associations between pay fairness perceptions and work/life-related outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 2263 physicians completed surveys. Fifty-seven percent believed their compensation was fair; there was no difference between physicians in internal medicine and non-primary care specialties (P = 0.58). Eighty-three percent were satisfied at work, 70% reported low likelihood of leaving their practice, and 77% rated their health as very good or excellent. Higher compensation levels were associated with greater work satisfaction and lower turnover intention, but most associations became statistically non-significant after adjusting for pay fairness perceptions. Perceived pay fairness was associated with greater work satisfaction (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 3.94-6.08; P < 0.001), lower turnover intention (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 2.01-3.01; P < 0.001), and better health (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.65; P < 0.01). DISCUSSION: Physicians who thought their pay was fair reported greater work satisfaction, lower likelihood of leaving their practice, and better overall health. Addressing pay fairness perceptions may be important for sustaining a satisfied and healthy physician workforce, which is necessary to deliver high-quality care.

Playing Music for Hospitalized Patients Enhances Mood and Reduces Perceptions of Pain.

OBJECTIVES: For most people, music serves as a calming influence or as a pleasurable stimulus that lifts their spirits. In an attempt to both distract and cheer up hospitalized patients, we designed a brief intervention that would bring music to their hospital rooms in attempt to enhance their mood and minimize their awareness of pain. METHODS: In this prospective study of adult patients on the general medicine ward at Johns Hopkins Hospital, we assessed the impact of self-selected music delivery on patients' mood and their perception of pain. Patients' mood and pain were assessed using the modified Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Verbal Numerical Rating Scale, a validated 10-point Likert pain scale. RESULTS: Of the 151 patients studied, their mean age was 57 years, 57% were women, and 65% were white. Ninety-seven percent of patients described listening to music regularly at home, but only 28% of patients reported that they had listened to any music since being in the hospital (P < 0.0001). The patients' modified Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score and pain score were decreased significantly (-4.99, standard error 0.45, P < 0.0001, and -0.72, standard error 1.51, P < 0.0001, respectively) after listening to a couple of their favorite songs. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that bringing music to hospitalized patients and encouraging them to listen to their favorite songs are genuinely appreciated. If this intervention can enhance moods and reduce pain for patients in the hospital, then directing resources to make it sustainable may be justified.

Adaptive medical education research.

This commentary reflects on what the four research articles in this issue of Medical Teacher tell us about adaptive learning and how adaptive medical education research can be conducted. Adaptive medical education researchers must think disruptively and embrace nontraditional collaborations, research methods, and means of dissemination in pursuit of evidence that enhances adaptive learning.

Bolstering diagnostic reasoning skills with adaptive learning.

PURPOSE: Adaptive learning emerges when precise assessment informs delivery of educational materials. This study will demonstrate how data from Human Dx, a case-based e-learning platform, can characterize an individual's diagnostic reasoning skills, and deliver tailored content to improve accuracy. METHODS: Pearson Chi-square analysis was used to assess variability in accuracy across three groups of participants (attendings, residents, and medical students) and three categories of cases (core medical, surgical, and other). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore the relationship between solve duration and accuracy. Mean accuracy and duration were calculated for 370 individuals. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to assess variability for an individual solver across the three categories. RESULTS: There were significant differences in accuracy across the three groups and the three categories (p < 0.001). Individual solvers have significant variance in accuracy across the three categories. Shorter solve duration predicted higher accuracy. Patterns of performance were identified; four profiles are highlighted to demonstrate potential adaptive learning interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Human Dx can assess diagnostic reasoning skills. When weaknesses are identified, adaptive learning strategies can push content to promote skill development. This has implications for customizing curricular elements to improve the diagnostic skills of healthcare professionals.