Race and Gender Bias in Clerkship Grading.

Phenomenon: Existing literature, as well as anecdotal evidence, suggests that tiered clinical grading systems may display systematic demographic biases. This study aimed to investigate these potential inequities in-depth. Specifically, this study attempted to address the following gaps in the literature: (1) studying grades actually assigned to students (as opposed to self-reported ones), (2) using longitudinal data over an 8-year period, providing stability of data, (3) analyzing three important, potentially confounding covariates, (4) using a comprehensive multivariate statistical design, and (5) investigating not just the main effects of gender and race, but also their potential interaction. Approach: Participants included 1,905 graduates (985 women, 51.7%) who received the Doctor of Medicine degree between 2014 and 2021. Most of the participants were white (n = 1,310, 68.8%) and about one-fifth were nonwhite (n = 397, 20.8%). There were no reported race data for 10.4% (n = 198). To explore potential differential grading, a two-way multivariate analysis of covariance was employed to examine the impact of race and gender on grades in eight required clerkships, adjusting for prior academic performance. Findings: There were two significant main effects, race and gender, but no interaction effect between gender and race. Women received higher grades on average on all eight clerkships, and white students received higher grades on average on four of the eight clerkships (Medicine, Pediatrics, Surgery, Obstetrics/Gynecology). These relationships held even when accounting for prior performance covariates. Insights: These findings provide additional evidence that tiered grading systems may be subject to systematic demographic biases. It is difficult to tease apart the contributions of various factors to the observed differences in gender and race on clerkship grades, and the interactions that produce these biases may be quite complex. The simplest solution to cut through the tangled web of grading biases may be to move away from a tiered grading system altogether.

Development of a taxonomy of unprofessional behavior in clinical learning environments using learner-generated critical incidents.

PURPOSE: Few studies have examined medical residents' and fellows' (trainees) direct experience of unprofessional behavior in clinical learning environments (CLE). The purpose of this study was to create a taxonomy of unprofessional behavior in CLEs using critical incidents gathered from trainees. METHOD: In step 1 (data collection), the authors collected 382 critical incidents from trainees at more than a dozen CLEs over a six-year period (2013-2019). In step 2 (model generation), nine subject matter experts (SMEs) sorted the incidents into homogenous clusters and this structure was tested with principal components analysis (PCA). In step 3 (model evaluation), two new groups of SMEs each re-sorted half of the incidents into the PCA-derived categories. RESULTS: A 13-component solution accounted for 62.46% of the variance in the critical incidents collected. The SMEs who re-sorted the critical incidents demonstrated good agreement with each other and with the 13-component PCA solution. The resulting taxonomy included 13 dimensions, with 48.7% of behaviors focused on displays of aggression or discriminatory conduct. CONCLUSIONS: Critical incident methodology can provide unique insights into the dimensionality of unprofessional behavior in the CLE. Future research should leverage the taxonomy created to inform professionalism assessment development in the CLE.

Essentials of Ambulatory Care a postgraduate-level, interdisciplinary, interprofessional curriculum at the University of Minnesota. .

Team-based care is a cornerstone of primary care. However, in medical school and residency, trainees get little formal education on this as a concept and how it works in an outpatient setting. Faculty members from the University of Minnesota created a one-day workshop, "Essentials of Ambulatory Care," to help residents in primary care specialties as well as pharmacy and nursing students pursuing advanced degrees better understand the roles and responsibilities of members of the primary care team. The workshop also helped them develop new skills for doing patient-centered visits. This article describes the workshop and what we learned from those who participated in the first session.

Perceptions of Justice in Clinical Learning Environments: Development and Validation of an Organizational Justice Measure for Medical Trainees.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop an instrument to measure medical trainees' perceptions of justice in clinical learning environments. METHOD: Between 2019 and 2023, the authors conducted a multiyear, multi-institutional, multiphase study to develop a 16-item justice measure with 4 dimensions: interpersonal, informational, procedural, and distributive. The authors gathered validity evidence based on test content, internal structure, and relationships with other variables across 3 phases. Phase 1 involved drafting items and gathering evidence that items measured intended dimensions. Phase 2 involved analyzing relevance of items for target groups, examining interitem correlations and factor loadings in a preliminary analysis, and obtaining reliability estimates. Phase 3 involved a confirmatory factor analysis and collecting convergent and discriminant validity evidence. RESULTS: In phase 1, 63 of 91 draft items were retained following a content validation exercise gauging how well items measured targeted dimensions (mean [SD] item ratings within dimensions, 4.16 [0.36] to 4.39 [0.34]) on a 5-point Likert scale (with 1 indicating not at all well and 5 indicating extremely well). In phase 2, 30 items were removed due to low factor loadings (i.e., < 0.40), and 4 items per dimension were selected (factor loadings, 0.42-0.89). In phase 3, a confirmatory factor analysis supported the 4-dimension model (χ2 = 610.14, P < .001; comparative fit index = 0.90, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.87, root mean squared error of approximation = 0.11, standardized root mean squared residual = 0.06), with convergent and discriminant validity evidence showing hypothesized positive correlations with a justice measure (r = 0.93, P < .001), trait positive affect (r = 0.46, P < .001), and emotional stability (r = 0.33, P < .001) and negative correlations with trait negative affect (r = -0.39, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate the measure's potential utility in understanding justice perceptions and designing targeted interventions.

Differences in Trainee Evaluations of Faculty by Rater and Ratee Gender.

PURPOSE: To examine whether gender differences exist in medical trainees' (residents' and fellows') evaluations of faculty at a number of clinical departments. METHOD: The authors conducted a single-institution (University of Minnesota Medical School) retrospective cohort analysis of 5,071 trainee evaluations of 447 faculty (for which trainee and faculty gender information was available) completed between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2022. The authors developed and employed a 17-item measure of clinical teaching effectiveness, with 4 dimensions: overall teaching effectiveness, role modeling, facilitating knowledge acquisition, and teaching procedures. Using both between- and within-subject samples, they conducted analyses to examine gender differences among the trainees making ratings (rater effects), the faculty receiving ratings (ratee effects), and whether faculty ratings differed by trainee gender (interaction effects). RESULTS: There was a statistically significant rater effect for the overall teaching effectiveness and facilitating knowledge acquisition dimensions (B = -0.28 and -0.14, 95% CI: [-0.35, -0.21] and [-0.20, -0.09], respectively, P < .001, medium corrected effect sizes between -0.34 and -0.54); female trainees rated male and female faculty lower than male trainees on both dimensions. There also was a statistically significant ratee effect for the overall teaching effectiveness and role modeling dimensions (B = -0.09 and -0.08, 95% CI: [-0.16, -0.02] and [-0.13, -0.04], P = .01 and < .001, respectively, small to medium corrected effect sizes between -0.16 and -0.44); female faculty were rated lower than male faculty on both dimensions. There was not a statistically significant interaction effect. CONCLUSIONS: Female trainees rated faculty lower than male trainees and female faculty were rated lower than male faculty on 2 teaching dimensions each. The authors encourage researchers to continue to examine the reasons for the evaluation differences observed and how implicit bias interventions might help to address them.

Adverse Childhood Experiences, Household Income, and Mentorship Among Interns Who Are Underrepresented in Medicine.

Background: Underrepresented in medicine (UIM) interns have unique lived experiences that affect their paths to medicine, and more information is needed for medical residency and fellowship programs to better support them. Objective: We describe self-reported differences between UIM and White physician interns in key demographic areas, including household income growing up, physician mentorship, and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Methods: Between 2019 and 2021, we administered a diversity survey to incoming medical interns at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. Response rates across the 3 years were 51.2% (167 of 326), 93.9% (310 of 330), and 98.9% (354 of 358), respectively. We conducted analyses to compare UIM and White groups across demographic variables of interest. Results: A total of 831 of 1014 interns (81.9%) completed the survey. Relative to White interns, UIM interns had lower household incomes growing up, lower rates of mentorship, and higher rates of experiencing 4 or more ACEs. The odds of experiencing the cumulative burden of having a childhood household income of $29,999 or less, no physician mentor, and 4 or more ACEs was approximately 10 times higher among UIM (6.41%) than White (0.66%) interns (OR=10.38, 95% CI 1.97-54.55). Conclusions: Childhood household income, prior mentorship experiences, and number of ACEs differed between UIM and White interns.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Stop No Evil: Institutional-Level Tracking to Combat Mistreatment of Residents and Fellows.

BACKGROUND: Mistreatment of trainees, including discrimination and harassment, is a problem in graduate medical education. Current tools to assess the prevalence of mistreatment often are not administered institutionally and may not account for multiple sources of mistreatment, limiting an institution's ability to respond and intervene. OBJECTIVE: We describe the utility of a brief questionnaire, embedded within longer institutional program evaluations, measuring the prevalence of different types of trainee mistreatment from multiple sources, including supervisors, team members, colleagues, and patients. METHODS: In 2018, we administered a modified version of the mistreatment questions in the Association of American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire to investigate the prevalence and sources of mistreatment in graduating residents and fellows. We conducted analyses to determine the prevalence, types, and sources of mistreatment of trainees at the institutional level across graduate medical education programs. RESULTS: A total of 234 graduating trainees (77%) from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities completed the questions. Patients were cited as the primary source of mistreatment in 5 of 6 categories, including both direct and indirect offensive remarks, microaggressions, sexual harassment, and physical threats (paired t test comparisons from t = 3.92 to t = 9.71, all P < .001). The only category of mistreatment in which patients were not the most significant source was humiliation and shaming. CONCLUSIONS: Six questions concerning types and sources of trainee mistreatment, embedded within an institutional survey, generated new information for institutional-, departmental- and program-based future interventions. Patients were the greatest source for all types of mistreatment except humiliation and shaming.