Creation of an asynchronous faculty development curriculum on well-written narrative assessments that avoid bias.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic in parallel with concerns about bias in grading resulted in many medical schools adopting pass/fail clinical grading and relying solely on narrative assessments. However, narratives often contain bias and lack specificity. The purpose of this project was to develop asynchronous faculty development to rapidly educate/re-educate > 2000 clinical faculty spread across geographic sites and clinical disciplines on components of a well-written narrative and methods to minimize bias in the assessment of students. METHODS: We describe creation, implementation, and pilot data outcomes for an asynchronous faculty development curriculum created by a committee of volunteer learners and faculty. After reviewing the literature on the presence and impact of bias in clinical rotations and ways to mitigate bias in written narrative assessments, the committee developed a web-based curriculum using multimedia learning theory and principles of adult learning. Just-in-time supplemental materials accompanied the curriculum. The Dean added completion of the module by 90% of clinical faculty to the department chairperson's annual education metric. Module completion was tracked in a learning management system, including time spent in the module and the answer to a single text entry question about intended changes in behavior. Thematic analysis of the text entry question with grounded theory and inductive processing was used to define themes of how faculty anticipate future teaching and assessment as a result of this curricula. OUTCOMES: Between January 1, 2021, and December 1, 2021, 2166 individuals completed the online module; 1820 spent between 5 and 90 min on the module, with a median time of 17 min and an average time of 20.2 min. 15/16 clinical departments achieved completion by 90% or more faculty. Major themes included: changing the wording of future narratives, changing content in future narratives, and focusing on efforts to change how faculty teach and lead teams, including efforts to minimize bias. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a faculty development curriculum on mitigating bias in written narratives with high rates of faculty participation. Inclusion of this module as part of the chair's education performance metric likely impacted participation. Nevertheless, time spent in the module suggests that faculty engaged with the material. Other institutions could easily adapt this curriculum with provided materials.

Physician Assistant Program Policies to Assess and Address Student Reports of Mistreatment During Clinical Training.

INTRODUCTION: Many physician assistant (PA) students experience mistreatment in clinical learning environments, and accredited PA programs are required to define, publish, and make readily available policies and procedures for student reports of mistreatment. The purpose of this study is to describe the prevalence, content, and dissemination of program policies to address students' reports of mistreatment involving preceptors during supervised clinical experiences. METHODS: To conduct a national policy analysis, the investigators included 10 new survey items in the 2019 Physician Assistant Education Association annual program survey. Deidentified data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The program response rate to the survey items was 99% (232). Approximately 76% of PA programs reported having a learner mistreatment policy. Policy content across programs varied widely, and several student reporting mechanisms were available. Program directors, clinical faculty, and institutional leadership were most likely to be involved in the management of reports. A majority programs actively assessed for mistreatment and most did so through clinical course evaluations and at the end of each clinical phase course. Most programs disseminated information about policy to faculty, students, and preceptors at least once a year. DISCUSSION: The descriptions of policy content, procedures, and dissemination increase educators' understanding of current policies across PA programs in the context of renewed efforts to write or revise policy that is specific to mistreatment. The authors discuss key policy priorities to define mistreatment, offer a range of confidential reporting mechanisms, review the management of reports, and consider how to optimize dissemination strategies.

Seeing is Believing: Inclusion of Biomedical Scientist Educators as Observers on Clinical Rounds.

Increasingly, medical school curricula seek to integrate the biomedical and clinical sciences. Inclusion of the basic sciences into the clinical curricula is less robust than including clinical content early in medical school. We describe inclusion of biomedical scientists on patient care rounds to increase the visibility of biomedical sciences, to nurture relationships between clinicians and biomedical scientists, and to identify additional opportunities for integration throughout medical school.

Implementation of Changes to Medical Student Documentation at Duke University Health System: Balancing Education With Service.

PURPOSE: When the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) changed policies about medical student documentation, students with proper supervision may now document their history, physical exam, and medical decision making in the electronic health record (EHR) for billable encounters. Since documentation is a core entrustable professional activity for medical students, the authors sought to evaluate student opportunities for documentation and feedback across and between clerkships. METHOD: In February 2018, a multidisciplinary workgroup was formed to implement student documentation at Duke University Health System, including educating trainees and supervisors, tracking EHR usage, and enforcing CMS compliance. From August 2018 to August 2019, locations and types of student-involved services (student-faculty or student-resident-faculty) were tracked using billing data from attestation statements. Student end-of-clerkship evaluations included opportunity for documentation and receipt of feedback. Since documentation was not allowed before August 2018, it was not possible to compare with prior student experiences. RESULTS: In the first half of the academic year, 6,972 patient encounters were billed as student-involved services, 52% (n = 3,612) in the inpatient setting and 47% (n = 3,257) in the outpatient setting. Most (74%) of the inpatient encounters also involved residents, and most (92%) of outpatient encounters were student-teaching physician only.Approximately 90% of students indicated having had opportunity to document in the EHR across clerkships, except for procedure-based clerkships such as surgery and obstetrics. Receipt of feedback was present along with opportunity for documentation more than 85% of the time on services using evaluation and management coding. Most students (> 90%) viewed their documentation as having a moderate or high impact on patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Changes to student documentation were successfully implemented and adopted; changes met both compliance and education needs within the health system without resulting in potential abuses of student work for service.

How Prepared Are Medical and Nursing Students to Identify Common Hazards in the Intensive Care Unit?

RATIONALE: Care in the hospital is hazardous. Harm in the hospital may prolong hospitalization, increase suffering, result in death, and increase costs of care. Although the interprofessional team is critical to eliminating hazards that may result in adverse events to patients, professional students' formal education may not prepare them adequately for this role. OBJECTIVES: To determine if medical and nursing students can identify hazards of hospitalization that could result in harm to patients and to detect differences between professions in the types of hazards identified. METHODS: Mixed-methods observational study of graduating nursing (n = 51) and medical (n = 93) students who completed two "Room of Horrors" simulations to identify patient safety hazards. Qualitative analysis was used to extract themes from students' written hazard descriptions. Fisher's exact test was used to determine differences in frequency of hazards identified between groups. RESULTS: Identification of hazards by students was low: 66% did not identify missing personal protective equipment for a patient on contact isolation, and 58% did not identify a medication administration error (medication hanging for a patient with similar name). Interprofessional differences existed in how hazards were identified: medical students noted that restraints were not indicated (73 vs. 2%, P < 0.001), whereas nursing students noted that there was no order for the restraints (58.5 vs. 0%, P < 0.0001). Nursing students discovered more issues with malfunctioning or incorrectly used equipment than medical students. Teams performed better than individuals, especially for hazards in the second simulation that were similar to those in the first: need to replace a central line with erythema (73% teams identified) versus need to replace a peripheral intravenous line (10% individuals, P < 0.0001). Nevertheless, teams of students missed many intensive care unit-specific hazards: 54% failed to identify the presence of pressure ulcers; 85% did not notice high tidal volumes on the ventilator; and 90% did not identify the absence of missing spontaneous awakening/breathing trials and absent stress ulcer prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Graduating nursing and medical students missed several hazards of hospitalization, especially those related to the intensive care unit. Orientation for residents and new nurses should include education on hospitalization hazards. Ideally, this orientation should be interprofessional to allow appreciation for each other's roles and responsibilities.

CaPOW! Using Problem Sets in a Capstone Course to Improve Fourth-Year Medical Students' Confidence in Self-Directed Learning.

PROBLEM: Despite the importance of self-directed learning (SDL) in the field of medicine, individuals are rarely taught how to perform SDL or receive feedback on it. Trainee skill in SDL is limited by difficulties with self-assessment and goal setting. APPROACH: Ninety-two graduating fourth-year medical students from Duke University School of Medicine completed an individualized learning plan (ILP) for a transition-to-residency Capstone course in spring 2015 to help foster their skills in SDL. Students completed the ILP after receiving a personalized report from a designated faculty coach detailing strengths and weaknesses on specific topics (e.g., pulmonary medicine) and clinical skills (e.g., generating a differential diagnosis). These were determined by their performance on 12 Capstone Problem Sets of the Week (CaPOWs) compared with their peers. Students used transitional-year milestones to self-assess their confidence in SDL. OUTCOMES: SDL was successfully implemented in a Capstone course through the development of required clinically oriented problem sets. Coaches provided guided feedback on students' performance to help them identify knowledge deficits. Students' self-assessment of their confidence in SDL increased following course completion. However, students often chose Capstone didactic sessions according to factors other than their CaPOW performance, including perceived relevance to planned specialty and session timing. NEXT STEPS: Future Capstone curriculum changes may further enhance SDL skills of graduating students. Students will receive increased formative feedback on their CaPOW performance and be incentivized to attend sessions in areas of personal weakness.

Current teaching and evaluation methods in critical care medicine: has the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education affected how we practice and teach in the intensive care unit?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandates for duty hours and competencies on instruction, evaluation, and patient care in intensive care units in the United States. DESIGN: A Web-based survey was designed to determine the current methods of teaching and evaluation in the intensive care unit, barriers to changing methods of teaching and evaluation, and the impact of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education regulations on teaching and patient care. SETTING: An anonymous Web-based survey was used; cumulative data were analyzed. SUBJECTS: A total of 125 of 380 program directors (33%) for pediatric critical care, pulmonary critical care, anesthesiology critical care, and surgery critical care fellowship programs completed questionnaires. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Bedside case-based teaching and standardized lectures are the most common methods of education in the intensive care unit. Patient safety and resident demands are two factors most likely to result in changes in instruction in the intensive care unit. Barriers to changes in education include clinical workload and lack of protected time and funding. Younger respondents viewed influences to change differently than older respondents. Respondents felt that neither education nor patient care had improved as a result of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandates. CONCLUSIONS: Medical education teaching methods and assessment in the intensive care unit have changed little since the initiation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education regulations despite respondents' self-report of a willingness to change. Instead, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education regulations are thought to have negatively impacted resident attitudes, continuity of care, and even availability for teaching. These concerns, coupled with lack of protected time and funding, serve as barriers toward changes in critical care graduate medical education.

Massive transfusion exceeding 50 units of blood products in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Massive transfusion of blood products in trauma patients can acutely deplete the blood bank. It was hypothesized that, despite a large allocation of resources to trauma patients receiving more than 50 units of blood products in the first 24 hours, outcome data would support the continued practice of massive transfusion. METHODS: A retrospective review of charts and registry data of trauma patients who received over 50 units of blood products in the first day was conducted for a 5-year period at a Level I trauma center. Patients were stratified into groups on the basis of the number of transfusions received. Results are expressed as mean +/- SD. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify those risk factors determined in the first 24 hours after admission that were predictive of mortality. Physiologic differences between survivors and nonsurvivors were also examined. RESULTS: Of 7,734 trauma patients admitted between July 1, 1995, and June 30, 2000, 44 (0.6%) received > 50 units of blood products in the first day. Overall mortality in these patients was 57%. There was no significant difference (p = 0.565, chi2) in mortality rate between patients who received > 75 units of blood products in the first day versus those who received 51 to 75 units. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified only one independent risk factor, base deficit > 12 mmol/L, associated with mortality. Base deficit > 12 mmol/L increases the risk of death by 5.5 times (p = 0.013; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-20.95). Neither the total blood product transfusion requirement in the first day nor the packed red blood cell transfusion amount in the first day were significant independent risk factors. Causes of the 25 deaths in this series included exsanguination in the operating room (n = 1) or in the surgical intensive care unit (n = 12), multiple organ failure/sepsis (n = 3), head injury (n = 3), respiratory failure (n = 2), cerebrovascular accident (n = 1), and other (n = 3). Of the survivors, 63% were discharged to home, 21% to rehabilitation, 11% to nursing home, and 5% to another acute care facility. Of the nonsurvivors, the mean Injury Severity Score was 43, 88% had a base deficit > 12 mmol/L, 68% had a Glasgow Coma Scale score < 8, and 64% had a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score > 10. CONCLUSION: The 43% survival rate in trauma patients receiving > 50 units of blood products warrants continued aggressive transfusion therapy in the first 24 hours after admission.