Recently Graduated Medical Students Lack Exposure to and Comfort with Chronic Liver Diseases.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of chronic liver disease (CLD) is rising, but it remains unclear if medical school curricula are emphasizing CLD to reflect its growing epidemiology. AIMS: To assess comfort levels and knowledge of CLD among recently graduated medical students METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed to incoming categorical Internal Medicine (IM) interns at a single academic institution during a 2-year period. The survey consisted of 38 Likert-like questions evaluating comfort levels and self-assessed knowledge for several general medicine and liver diseases, as well as 12 multiple-choice questions to objectively test knowledge. Wilcoxon ranked sum and Fisher's exact test were then used. RESULTS: There was a 100% (n = 65) completion rate. Only 14 (22%) of those surveyed reported exposure to a hepatology rotation in medical school. Highest mean comfort levels (1 = not at all comfortable, 5 = very comfortable) were for managing congestive heart failure (3.59) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (3.77). Mean comfort levels for various liver diseases were significantly lower (2.22-3.03, all p < 0.01). Mean self-rated knowledge (1 = no knowledge, 5 = strong knowledge) was also low (2.14-3.13). Although 98% agreed that hepatology is critical to IM training, only 42% agreed that their hepatology education during medical school was adequate. CONCLUSIONS: Recently graduated medical students are less comfortable managing liver diseases compared to other general medical conditions. Only a minority report satisfaction with hepatology education during medical school. These findings suggest that medical curricula need to be modified to better emphasize CLD.

Development and testing of a web module to IMPROVE generic prescribing of oral contraceptives among primary care physicians.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The use of generic oral contraceptives (OCPs) can improve adherence and reduce healthcare costs, yet scepticism of generic drugs remains a barrier to generic OCP discussion and prescription. An educational web module was developed to reduce generic scepticism related to OCPs, improve knowledge of generic drugs and increase physician willingness to discuss and prescribe generic OCPs. METHODS: A needs assessment was completed using in-person focus groups at American College of Physicians (ACP) Annual Meeting and a survey targeting baseline generic scepticism. Insights gained were used to build an educational web module detailing barriers and benefits of generic OCP prescription. The module was disseminated via email to an ACP research panel who completed our baseline survey. Post-module evaluation measured learner reaction, knowledge and intention to change behaviour along with generic scepticism. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The module had a response rate of 56% (n = 208/369). Individuals defined as generic sceptics at baseline were significantly less likely to complete our module compared to non-sceptics (responders 9.6% vs non-responders 16.8%, P = 0.04). The majority (85%, n = 17/20) of baseline sceptics were converted to non-sceptics (P < 0.01) following completion of the module. Compared to non-sceptics, post-module generic sceptics reported less willingness to discuss (sceptic 33.3% vs non-sceptic 71.5%, P < 0.01), but not less willingness to prescribe generic OCPs (sceptic 53.3% vs non-sceptic 67.9%, P = 0.25). Non-white physicians and international medical graduates (IMG) were more likely to be generic sceptics at baseline (non-white 86.9% vs white 69.9%, P = 0.01, IMG 13.0% vs USMG 5.0% vs unknown 18.2%, P = 0.03) but were also more likely to report intention to prescribe generic OCPs as a result of the module (non-white 78.7% vs white 57.3%, P < 0.01, IMG 76.1% vs USMG 50.3% vs unknown 77.3%, P = 0.03). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: A brief educational web module can be used to promote prescribing of generic OCPs and reduce generic scepticism.

Educational video to improve CPAP use in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea at risk for poor adherence: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal adherence to CPAP limits its clinical effectiveness in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Although rigorous behavioural interventions improve CPAP adherence, their labour-intensive nature has limited widespread implementation. Moreover, these interventions have not been tested in patients at risk of poor CPAP adherence. Our objective was to determine whether an educational video will improve CPAP adherence in patients at risk of poor CPAP adherence. METHODS: Patients referred by clinicians without sleep medicine expertise to an urban sleep laboratory that serves predominantly minority population were randomised to view an educational video about OSA and CPAP therapy before the polysomnogram, or to usual care. The primary outcome was CPAP adherence during the first 30 days of therapy. Secondary outcomes were show rates to sleep clinic (attended appointment) and 30-day CPAP adherence after the sleep clinic visit date. RESULTS: A total of 212 patients met the eligibility criteria and were randomised to video education (n=99) or to usual care (n=113). There were no differences in CPAP adherence at 30 days (3.3, 95% CI 2.8 to 3.8 hours/day video education; vs 3.5, 95% CI 3.1 to 4.0 hours/day usual care; p=0.44) or during the 30 days after sleep clinic visit. Sleep clinic show rate was 54% in the video education group and 59% in the usual care group (p=0.41). CPAP adherence, however, significantly worsened in patients who did not show up to the sleep clinic. CONCLUSIONS: In patients at risk for poor CPAP adherence, an educational video did not improve CPAP adherence or show rates to sleep clinic compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02553694.

Novel educational interventions in residency increase knowledge of chronic liver disease and career interest in hepatology.

There is an increasing burden of chronic liver disease (CLD) in the United States but a significant shortage of hepatologists. Thus, it is necessary to develop new recruitment strategies to the field of hepatology as well as ensure that non-gastroenterology-trained physicians are able to capably assist in the care of CLD. We established a novel, nonelective, inpatient hepatology rotation that uses required modules in the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Curriculum and Training-First Hepatitis B and C curriculums as well as in LiverLearning. A paper-based anonymous assessment was distributed to the inaugural 25 postgraduate years 2 and 3 internal medicine residents before and after the 2-week rotation over the course of 1 year. Both the prerotation and postrotation assessments included validated multiple-choice questions and Likert-type questions, which evaluated self-perceived knowledge and comfort with managing CLD. The mean comfort level (1 = not at all comfortable/strongly disagree, 5 = very comfortable/strongly agree) of managing several common liver diseases increased significantly after completion of the rotation (i.e., cirrhosis 2.8 versus 3.8, P < 0.001; hepatitis B 2.4 versus 3.4, P = 0.001; hepatitis C 2.6 versus 3.7, P = 0.002; nonalcoholic steatohepatitis 3.0 versus 4.0, P < 0.001; liver transplant care 2.1 versus 3.4, P < 0.001). There was also a significantly increased interest in hepatology as a career (2.6 versus 3.0, P = 0.03). Finally, the mean percentage of multiple-choice questions answered correctly on the pretest was 62% and posttest was 77% (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Our novel curriculum and nonelective hepatology rotation has effectively demonstrated improvement in internal medicine residents' comfort with and knowledge of CLD, and increased career interest in hepatology was also observed after completion of the curriculum, which suggests that more exposure to CLD could positively impact recruitment to the workforce; larger, multicenter studies are needed to validate these results. (Hepatology 2016;64:2210-2218).

The Modified, Multi-patient Observed Simulated Handoff Experience (M-OSHE): Assessment and Feedback for Entering Residents on Handoff Performance.

BACKGROUND: Despite the identification of transfer of patient responsibility as a Core Entrustable Professional Activity for Entering Residency, rigorous methods to evaluate incoming residents' ability to give a verbal handoff of multiple patients are lacking. AIM: Our purpose was to implement a multi-patient, simulation-based curriculum to assess verbal handoff performance. SETTING: Graduate Medical Education (GME) orientation at an urban, academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-four incoming residents from four residency programs participated in the study. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The curriculum featured an online training module and a multi-patient observed simulated handoff experience (M-OSHE). Participants verbally "handed off" three mock patients of varying acuity and were evaluated by a trained "receiver" using an expert-informed, five-item checklist. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Prior handoff experience in medical school was associated with higher checklist scores (23% none vs. 33% either third OR fourth year vs. 58% third AND fourth year, p = 0.021). Prior training was associated with prioritization of patients based on acuity (12% no training vs. 38% prior training, p = 0.014). All participants agreed that the M-OSHE realistically portrayed a clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS: The M-OSHE is a promising strategy for teaching and evaluating entering residents' ability to give verbal handoffs of multiple patients. Prior training and more handoff experience was associated with higher performance, which suggests that additional handoff training in medical school may be of benefit.

Patient Perceptions of Whom is Most Involved in Their Care with Successive Duty Hour Limits.

BACKGROUND: Although direct patient care is necessary for experiential learning during residency, inpatient perceptions of the roles of resident and attending physicians in their care may have changed with residency duty hours. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess if patients' perceptions of who is most involved in their care changed with residency duty hours. DESIGN: This was a prospective observational study over 12 years at a single institution. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 22,408 inpatients admitted to the general medicine teaching service from 2001 to 2013, who completed a 1-month follow-up phone interview. MAIN MEASURES: Percentage of inpatients who reported an attending, resident, or intern as most involved in their care by duty hour period (pre-2003, post-2003-pre-2011, post-2011). KEY RESULTS: With successive duty hour limits, the percentage of patients who reported the attending as most involved in their care increased (pre-2003 20 %, post-2003-pre-2011 29 %, post-2011 37 %, p < 0.001). Simultaneously, fewer patients reported a housestaff physician (resident or intern) as most involved in their care (pre-2003 20 %, post-2003-pre-2011 17 %, post-2011 12 %, p < 0.001). In multinomial regression models controlling for patient age, race, gender and hospitalist as teaching attending, the relative risk ratio of naming the resident versus the attending was higher in the pre-2003 period (1.44, 95 % CI 1.28-1.62, p < 0.001) than the post-2003-pre-2011 (reference group). In contrast, the relative risk ratio for naming the resident versus the attending was lower in the post-2011 period (0.79, 95 % CI 0.68-0.93, p = 0.004) compared to the reference group. CONCLUSIONS: After successive residency duty hours limits, hospitalized patients were more likely to report the attending physician and less likely to report the resident or intern as most involved in their hospital care. Given the importance of experiential learning to the formation of clinical judgment for independent practice, further study on the implications of these trends for resident education and patient safety is warranted.

Online medical professionalism: patient and public relationships: policy statement from the American College of Physicians and the Federation of State Medical Boards.

User-created content and communications on Web-based applications, such as networking sites, media sharing sites, or blog platforms, have dramatically increased in popularity over the past several years, but there has been little policy or guidance on the best practices to inform standards for the professional conduct of physicians in the digital environment. Areas of specific concern include the use of such media for nonclinical purposes, implications for confidentiality, the use of social media in patient education, and how all of this affects the public's trust in physicians as patient-physician interactions extend into the digital environment. Opportunities afforded by online applications represent a new frontier in medicine as physicians and patients become more connected. This position paper from the American College of Physicians and the Federation of State Medical Boards examines and provides recommendations about the influence of social media on the patient-physician relationship, the role of these media in public perception of physician behaviors, and strategies for physician-physician communication that preserve confidentiality while best using these technologies.

Participation and experience of third-year medical students in handoffs: time to sign out?

BACKGROUND: Although interns are expected to be competent in handoff communication, it is currently unclear what level of exposure, participation, and comfort medical students have with handoffs prior to graduation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to characterize passive and active involvement of third-year medical students in the major components of the handoff process. DESIGN: An anonymous voluntary retrospective cross-sectional survey administered in 2010. PARTICIPANTS: Rising fourth-year students at two large urban private medical schools. MAIN MEASURES: Participation and confidence in active and passive behaviors related to written signout and verbal handoffs during participants' third-year clerkships. KEY RESULTS: Seventy percent of students (n = 204) responded. As third-year medical students, they reported frequent participation in handoffs, such as updating a written signout for a previously admitted patient (58 %). Students who reported frequent participation (at least weekly) in handoff tasks were more likely to report being confident in that task (e.g., giving verbal handoff 62 % vs. 19 %, p < 0.001). Students at one site that did not have a handoff policy for medical students reported greater participation, more confidence, and less desire for training. Nearly all students believed they had witnessed an error in written signout (98 %) and almost two-thirds witnessed an error due to verbal handoffs (64 %). CONCLUSIONS: During their third year, many medical students are participating in handoffs, although reported rates differ across training environments. Medical schools should consider the appropriate level of competence for medical student participation in handoffs, and implement corresponding curricula and assessment tools to ensure that medical students are able to effectively conduct handoffs.

Validation of a handoff assessment tool: the Handoff CEX.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Test the feasibility and validity of a handoff evaluation tool for nurses. BACKGROUND: No validated tools exist to assess the quality of handoff communication during change of shift. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: A standardised tool, the Handoff CEX, was developed based on the mini-CEX. The tool consisted of seven domains scored on a 1-9 scale. Nurse educators observed shift-to-shift handoff reports among nurses and evaluated both the provider and recipient of the report. Nurses participating in the report simultaneously evaluated each other as part of their handoff. RESULTS: Ninety-eight evaluations were obtained from 25 reports. Scores ranged from 3-9 in all domains except communication and setting (4-9). Experienced (>five years) nurses received significantly higher mean scores than inexperienced (≤ five years) nurses in all domains except setting and professionalism. Mean overall score for experienced nurses was 7·9 vs 6·9 for inexperienced nurses. External observers gave significantly lower scores than peer evaluators in all domains except setting. Mean overall score by external observers was 7·1 vs. 8·1 by peer evaluators. Participants were very satisfied with the evaluation (mean score 8·1). CONCLUSIONS: A brief, structured handoff evaluation tool was designed that was well-received by participants, was felt to be easy to use without training, provided data about a wide range of communication competencies and discriminated well between experienced and inexperienced clinicians. Relevance to clinical practice. This tool may be useful for educators, supervisors and practicing nurses to provide training, ongoing assessment and feedback to improve the quality of handoff.

The Association Between USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge Scores and Residency Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: With the change in Step 1 score reporting, Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) may become a pivotal factor in resident selection. This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to synthesize existing observational studies that assess the relationship between Step 2 CK scores and measures of resident performance. METHOD: The authors searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases using terms related to Step 2 CK in 2021. Two researchers identified studies investigating the association between Step 2 CK and measures of resident performance and included studies if they contained a bivariate analysis examining Step 2 CK scores' association with an outcome of interest: in-training examination (ITE) scores, board certification examination scores, select Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competency assessments, overall resident performance evaluations, or other subjective measures of performance. For outcomes that were investigated by 3 or more studies, pooled effect sizes were estimated with random-effects models. RESULTS: Among 1,355 potential studies, 68 met inclusion criteria and 43 were able to be pooled. There was a moderate positive correlation between Step 2 CK and ITE scores (0.52, 95% CI 0.45-0.59, P < .01). There was a moderate positive correlation between Step 2 CK and ITE scores for both nonsurgical (0.59, 95% CI 0.51-0.66, P < .01) and surgical specialties (0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.48, P < .01). There was a very weak positive correlation between Step 2 CK scores and subjective measures of resident performance (0.19, 95% CI 0.13-0.25, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: This study found Step 2 CK scores have a statistically significant moderate positive association with future examination scores and a statistically significant weak positive correlation with subjective measures of resident performance. These findings are increasingly relevant as Step 2 CK scores will likely become more important in resident selection.

Patient Advocates' Perspectives on the Care of Sexual Assault Survivors in Chicago-Area Emergency Departments.

Emergency departments (EDs) providing care and forensic examinations for sexual assault (SA) survivors are often supported by SA patient advocates. This study explored advocates' perspectives regarding problems and potential solutions in SA patient care through a focus group with 12 advocates. Thematic analysis identified two major themes: provider-patient interactions and ED-hospital systems. Challenging aspects of provider-patient interactions included (a) provider attitudes and (b) disempowering behaviors. Within ED-hospital systems, themes included time constraints, efficiencies, and hospital preparation. Advocates surveyed were optimistic about an increased presence of SA nurse examiners and enhanced protocols and provider training to improve survivors' experiences.

Advice and perspectives from navigating the couples match in otolaryngology: A qualitative pilot study.

Introduction: There is a lack of qualitative analysis of the personal experiences within Couples Matching. In this qualitative study, we aim to record personal attitudes, reflections, and advice on experiences with the Couples Match process. Methods: Our survey, consisting of two open-ended questions regarding the experience of Couples Matching, was distributed from January 2022 to March 2022 via email to 106 otolaryngology program directors across the nation. Survey responses were analyzed iteratively using the constructivist grounded theory to construct themes related to pre-match priorities, match-related stressors, and post-match satisfaction. Themes were developed inductively and refined iteratively as the dataset evolved. Results: 18 Couples Match residents responded. In response to the first question: "What was the most difficult part of the process for you and/or your partner?", we identified the following themes: cost and financial burden, increased stress on the relationship, sacrificing top choices, and finalizing the match list. In response to the second question: "Using your experience as a previous applicant, what advice would you give to another couple planning on couples matching?", we identified four common themes: compromise, advocacy, dynamic conversations, and applying broadly. Conclusion: We sought to understand the Couples Match process through the perspective of previous applicants. Analyzing the views and attitudes of Couples Match applicants, our study captures the most challenging aspects of the experience and highlights possible areas to improve advising for couples, including important factors to consider when applying, ranking, and interviewing.

Competency-Based Frameworks in Medical School Education Programs: A Thematic Analysis of the Academic Medicine Snapshots, 2020.

PURPOSE: Educational program objectives (EPOs) provide the foundation for a medical school's curriculum. In recent years, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) endorsed an outcomes-based approach to objectives, to embrace the movement toward competency-based medical education (CBME). The purpose of this study was to explore the CBME frameworks used by medical schools in formulating their EPOs. A secondary aim was to determine factors related to the selection of specific frameworks. METHOD: The authors performed a quantitative content analysis of entries to the 2020 Academic Medicine Snapshot. Publicly available data gathered included demographic features of each program (e.g., year founded, accreditation status, affiliation, etc.), participation in national medical education consortia, and presence of specific CBME frameworks identified in EPOs. Descriptive statistics were used to examine trends in frameworks used by medical schools. Bivariate comparisons between factors and frameworks were conducted using chi-square tests. Logistic regression was used to examine factors predicting use of more recently developed CBME frameworks. RESULTS: A total of 135 institutions submitted Snapshots (RR = 88%). All institutions endorsed 1 or more CBME frameworks, with 37% endorsing 2 and 20% endorsing 3 or more. The most common was the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies (63%). In addition to published frameworks, 36% of institutions developed their own competencies. Schools with pending LCME visits were 2.61 times more likely to use a more recently developed curricular framework, P = .022. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools in the United States have embraced the CBME movement through incorporation of competency-based frameworks in their EPOs. While it is encouraging that CBME frameworks have been integrated in medical school EPOs, the variability and use of multiple frameworks identifies the pressing need for a unified CBME framework in undergraduate medical education.

Blurring boundaries and online opportunities.

The rising use of social media, for both clinical and nonclinical purposes, obviates the need for policy to more explicitly guide physicians, and their behaviors, in this new digital environment.The current report from the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) addresses a number of these issues, specifically the nature of interaction and representation between physicians and patients. However, given the nature of the focus of this report-the nonclinical use of the internet and social media-there are a number of issues that deserve attention, in particular encouraging education and addressing how to approach relationships among medical professionals of varying levels of training.