Epistemic Peerhood as a Model To Improve Gender-Affirming Care in Medical Education.

Issue: Inadequate training around gender-affirming care is a critical gap in health care and medical education that causes disparities and leads to injury for transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse patients. In contrast to this widespread provider knowledge gap, gender-diverse patients bring critical knowledge from their own experiences to health care. Embracing varied epistemologies, or sources of knowledge, within medical education has the potential to enhance gender-affirming care by intentionally placing value on the lived experiences and emphasizing the credibility of gender-diverse patients. Evidence: In this article, the authors endorse a model of epistemic peerhood in which the embodied knowledge of gender-diverse patients and the authoritative knowledge of providers are each valued for their contribution to care. The authors reflect on experiences developing gender-affirming healthcare curricula and how medical education has not yet adequately addressed gender-diverse care without embracing community knowledge. Implications: The authors identify three vital areas to integrate epistemic peerhood in medical training to address gaps in gender-affirming care: (1) collaborative student training methods that reflect embodied knowledge in the absence of, or in addition to, clinical expertise on gender-affirming care; (2) sustainable partnerships between academic programs and gender-diverse communities that foster continuous engagement from collaborators with lived experience; and (3) broad community input about best practices for representing gender diversity in patient simulation. Embracing epistemic peerhood in each of these areas would result in broader gender-diverse community representation and leadership in medical education, which would ultimately strengthen gender-affirming healthcare training.

Standardized Vaccine-Hesitant Patients in the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Vaccine Communication Training.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if training residents in a structured communication method elicits specific behaviors in a laboratory model of interaction with vaccine-hesitant parents. STUDY DESIGN: Standardized patients portraying vaccine-hesitant parents were used to assess the effectiveness of training in the Announce, Inquire, Mirror, Secure (AIMS) Method for Healthy Conversations. Blinded pediatric residents were pseudorandomized to receive AIMS or control training and underwent pre- and post-training encounters with blinded standardized patients. Encounters were assessed by blinded raters using a novel tool. Participant confidence and standardized patient evaluations of the participants' general communication skills were assessed. RESULTS: Ratings were available for 27 AIMS and 26 control participants. Statistically significant increases in post-training scores (maximum = 30) were detected in AIMS, but not in control, participants (median, 21.3 [IQR, 19.8-24.8] vs 18.8 [IQR, 16.9-20.9]; P < .001). Elements (maximum score = 6) with significant increases were Inquire (0.67 [IQR, 0-1.76] vs -0.33 [IQR, -0.67 to 0.33]; P < .001); Mirror (1.33 [IQR, 0 to 2] vs -0.33 [IQR, -0.92 to 0]; P < .001) and Secure (0.33 [IQR, 0 to 1.67] vs -0.17 [IQR, -0.67 to 0.33]; P = .017). Self-confidence increased equally in both groups. Standardized patients did not detect a difference in communication skills after training and between groups. Internal consistency and inter-rater reliability of the assessment tool were modest. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized patients proved useful in studying the effectiveness of structured communication training, but may have been limited in their ability to perceive a difference between groups owing to the predetermined encounter outcome of vaccine refusal. AIMS training should be studied in real-world scenarios to determine if it impacts vaccine acceptance.

Gender Minorities in Simulation: A Mixed Methods Study of Medical School Standardized Patient Programs in the United States and Canada.

PURPOSE: A provider's ability to translate knowledge about transgender health to affirming patient care is key to addressing disparities. However, standardized patient (SP) programs have little published guidance for gender-affirming care or addressing disparities experienced by transgender and nonbinary patients. METHOD: Between 2018 and 2019, we invited all 208 accredited US and Canadian medical schools to participate in a study to determine how gender minorities are represented in SP encounters. Responding programs (n = 59, response rate = 28%) that represented patients with diverse gender identities were invited to complete semistructured interviews about SP case content, impact, and barriers to this work. Discussions were analyzed using a modified grounded theory method. RESULTS: Fifty nine of 208 eligible programs (response rate = 28.3%) completed our survey and 24 completed interviews. More than half of programs used gender minority SPs (n = 35, 59.3%). More than half of the programs also reported portraying gender minority cases (n = 31, 52.5%). Interviewees described how effective SP simulation required purposeful case development, engaging subject matter experts with lived experience, and ensuring psychological safety of gender minority SPs. Barriers included recruitment, fear of disrespecting gender minority communities, and transphobia. Engaging gender minorities throughout case development, training, and implementation of SP encounters was perceived to reduce bias and stereotyping, but respondents unanimously desired guidance on best practices on SP methodology regarding gender identity. CONCLUSIONS: Many programs have established or are developing SP activities that portray gender minority patients. Effective SP simulation hinges on authenticity, but the decisions around case development and casting vary. Specifically, programs lack consensus about who should portray gender minority patients. This research suggests that input from gender minority communities both to inform best practices at the macro level and in an ongoing advisory capacity at the program level will be essential to teach gender-affirming care.

Taking Up the Mantle of Human Trafficking Education: Who Should Be Responsible?

Human trafficking is a global human rights issue with long-range health consequences about which physicians are largely uneducated. Medical schools are uniquely positioned to address this gap. All future physicians, regardless of specialty, must learn to identify victims and refer them to trauma-informed treatment. Research and advocacy are needed to address the lack of rigorously evaluated curricula in this area, impact policy, and improve services for victims of this heinous form of exploitation.

The Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) Standards of Best Practice (SOBP).

In this paper, we define the Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) Standards of Best Practice (SOBP) for those working with human role players who interact with learners in a wide range of experiential learning and assessment contexts. These human role players are variously described by such terms as standardized/simulated patients or simulated participants (SP or SPs). ASPE is a global organization whose mission is to share advances in SP-based pedagogy, assessment, research, and scholarship as well as support the professional development of its members. The SOBP are intended to be used in conjunction with the International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation and Learning (INACSL) Standards of Best Practice: SimulationSM, which address broader simulation practices. We begin by providing a rationale for the creation of the ASPE SOBP, noting that with the increasing use of simulation in healthcare training, it is incumbent on ASPE to establish SOBP that ensure the growth, integrity, and safe application of SP-based educational endeavors. We then describe the three and a half year process through which these standards were developed by a consensus of international experts in the field. Key terms used throughout the document are defined. Five underlying values inform the SOBP: safety, quality, professionalism, accountability, and collaboration. Finally, we describe five domains of best practice: safe work environment; case development; SP training for role portrayal, feedback, and completion of assessment instruments; program management; and professional development. Each domain is divided into principles with accompanying key practices that provide clear and practical guidelines for achieving desired outcomes and creating simulations that are safe for all stakeholders. Failure to follow the ASPE SOBP could compromise the safety of participants and the effectiveness of a simulation session. Care has been taken to make these guidelines precise yet flexible enough to address the diversity of varying contexts of SP practice. As a living document, these SOBP will be reviewed and modified periodically under the direction of the ASPE Standards of Practice Committee as SP methodology grows and adapts to evolving simulation practices.