Medical Faculty and Medical Student Opinions on the Utility of Questions to Teach and Evaluate in the Clinical Environment.

Objectives: We sought to report medical student and faculty perceptions of the purpose and utility of questions on clinical rounds. Methods: We developed and administered a survey to third and fourth-year medical students and teaching physicians. The survey elicited attitudes about using questions to teach on rounds in both benign and malignant learning environments. Results: Ninety-seven percent of faculty and 85% of students predicted they will use questions to teach. Nine percent of students described learning-impairing stress during benign bedside teaching. Fifty-nine percent of faculty felt questions were mostly for teaching; 74% of students felt questions were mostly for evaluation. Forty-six percent of students felt questions underestimated their knowledge. Students felt questions were more effective for classroom teaching than bedside teaching. Faculty and students agreed that a malignant environment detrimentally affected learning and performance. Conclusions: Students and faculty supported the use of questions to teach and evaluate, especially in benign teaching environments. Many students described stress severe enough to affect their learning and performance, even when questioned in benign teaching environments. Faculty underestimated the degree to which students experience stress-related learning impairment and the degree to which students see questions as evaluation rather than teaching. Nearly half of students felt that questions underestimated their own knowledge. Students feel more stress and less learning when questioned with a patient present. Faculty must realize that even in the best learning environment some students experience stress-impaired learning and performance, perhaps because of the conflict between learning and evaluation.

Using Standardized Whiteboards to Improve Patient Engagement.

Whiteboards are ubiquitous fixtures in hospital rooms that may represent a ready-made patient engagement tool; yet, their use has only been minimally explored. This study examined the relationship between a standardized whiteboard communication process and patient activation by using the Patient Activation Measure (PAM®). Participants (N = 172) that were optimally involved in whiteboard communication had significantly higher PAM® scores compared to those who were suboptimally involved. PAM® scores also correlated with self-reported role, with those endorsing active participation scoring higher than passive listeners. Accordingly, this study establishes a positive association between the structured use of whiteboards and patient activation.

Evaluation of Provider Assessment of Clinical History When Using the HEART Score.

Objective: The HEART Score is a clinically validated risk stratification tool for patients with chest pain. Using five parameters (History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin), this instrument categorizes patients as low, moderate, or high risk for major adverse cardiac events within six weeks after evaluation. Of these parameters, History is the most subjective, as providers independently assign their level of clinical suspicion. Overestimation of history, and ultimately the HEART Score, can result in increased resource utilization, expense, and patient risk. We sought to evaluate bias in provider assessment of history when determining the HEART Score. Methods: Emergency medicine (EM) and Cardiology providers received surveys with one of two versions of clinical vignettes randomized at the question level and were asked to estimate the history component of the HEART Score. Vignettes differed by age, risk factors, sex, and socioeconomic status (SES), but both versions should have received the same score for history. Statistical analysis was then used to assess differences in history assessment between vignettes. Results: Of the 884 responses analyzed, most providers overestimated the historical portion of the HEART Score when assessing risk factors, patient distress, age, and lower SES. Many underestimated history with knowledge of a previous negative stress test. When controlling for specialty, the universal theme was overestimation by EM providers and underestimation by cardiologists. Despite the presence of hypertension, gender differences, and the appearance of mild distress, cardiologists were more likely to correctly estimate history compared to EM providers. SES consideration generally led to an underestimation of history by cardiologists. These findings were all statistically significant. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that both EM and cardiology providers overestimate history when considering prognosticators that are frequently viewed as concerning. Further education on proper usage of the HEART Score is needed for more appropriate scoring of history and improved resource allocation for hospital systems.