Optimizing Multidisciplinary Simulation in Medical School for Larger Groups: Role Assignment by Lottery and Guided Learning.

PURPOSE: Medical school simulations are often designed for a limited number of students to maximize engagement and learning. To ensure that all first-year medical students who wished to join had an opportunity to participate, we designed a novel method for larger groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We devised a low technology "Orchestra Leader's" chart approach to prominently display students' roles, chosen by lottery. During simulation, the chart was mounted on an intravenous pole and served as a group organizational tool. A course instructor prompted students using the chart to accomplish the course objectives in a logical order. Real-life cardiologists and gastroenterologists provided the students with expert subspecialty consultation. We analyzed 125 anonymous student evaluation ratings for 3 years (2017-2019) with a range of 8 to 19 students per laboratory session. RESULTS: Our 2017-2019 larger group sessions were all rated as excellent (1.26, Mean, SD ±.510) on the Likert scale where 1.0 is excellent and 5.0 is poor. There were no statistically significant differences in overall ratings among the 2017, 2018 and 2019 sessions. The subspecialists were uniformly rated as excellent. Verbatim free-text responses demonstrated resounding student appreciation for the role assignment by lottery method. CONCLUSION: We designed a novel, "Orchestra Leader's" chart approach for accommodating larger groups in a multidisciplinary simulation laboratory using role assignment by lottery, roles depicted on an organizational chart, and expert instructor prompting. Our consistently excellent ratings suggest that our methods are useful for achieving well-rated larger group simulation laboratories.

Using medical students to enhance curricular integration of cross-cultural content.

We hypothesized that an interested medical student group would be helpful in reviewing tutorial cases and giving relevant feedback on the curricular integration of cross-cultural content using case triggers in a preclinical gastrointestinal pathophysiology course. Self-selected student leaders (n = 9) reviewed pre-existing problem-based learning tutorial cases (n = 3) with cross-cultural triggers, and provided narrative feedback to course faculty. The cases were modified and used for the entire class in the following 2 years. Participating course students' comments and teaching faculty feedback were also noted. Outcomes were a change in case content, student global evaluations of the course, and self-reported faculty comfort with teaching the cases. All three tutorial cases were reviewed by a separate group of 2-3 students. Major and minor revisions were made to each case based on the student feedback. These cases were used in 2007 and 2008 and were the major change to the course during that time. Overall course evaluation scores improved significantly from 2006 to 2008 (p = 0.000). Tutors (n = 22 in 2007; n = 23 in 2008) expressed relief during tutor meetings that students had reviewed the cases. A general framework for eliciting student feedback on problem-based cases was developed. Student feedback, consisting of self-selected students' case reviews and solicited course and tutor comments, added value to a curricular reform to improve the integration of cross-cultural content into a problem-based learning curriculum. Our study underscores the fundamental link between teachers and students as partners in curricular development.