Calling Consults: A Workshop to Teach Trainees Using Both Didactic and Small Group-based Learning.

Background: Safe patient care includes effective communication. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education common program requirements include core requirements for trainees to act in a consultative manner and communicate effectively. However, trainees do not commonly receive formal education on this topic. Objective: We created a 1-hour workshop to teach residents and fellows how to effectively call consults, including how to formulate a cogent and comprehensive consult question. Methods: The workshop, delivered over a 1-hour noon conference, included a didactic portion and interactive small-group case-based learning. We used pre- and postworkshop surveys to assess learners' prior training, knowledge, and comfort levels in calling consults. Subspecialists answered a separate survey about the quality of consults received from trainees before and 30 days after the workshop. Results: Seventy-three trainees attended the workshop (41.2% of total trainees invited). After the workshop, the percentage of learners who identified as very or somewhat comfortable with calling consults increased from 82% to 91%. Before the workshop, 87% of trainees could identify key elements in a consult, which increased to 100% after the workshop. There was not a statistically significant improvement in subspecialists' ratings of the overall quality of consults they received 30 days after the workshop. Conclusion: Training learners on the key components and etiquette of calling consults is crucial for the development of effective communication among providers. This training is generally lacking from undergraduate medical education; thus, it is important to provide education in calling consults during residency and fellowship.

The Challenges of Multisource Feedback: Feasibility and Acceptability of Gathering Patient Feedback for Pediatric Residents.

OBJECTIVE: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education calls for residency programs to incorporate multisource feedback, which may include patient feedback, into resident competency assessments. Program directors face numerous challenges in gathering this feedback. This study assesses the feasibility and acceptability of patient feedback collection in the inpatient and outpatient setting at 3 institutions. METHODS: Patient feedback was collected using a modified version of the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). Trained research assistants administered the CAT to eligible patients and families in pediatric ward, intensive care, and outpatient settings from July to October 2015. Completion rates and reasons for non-completion were recorded. Patient satisfaction with the CAT was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The CAT was completed by 860/1413 (61%) patients. Completion rates in the pediatric ward and intensive care settings were 45% and 38%, respectively, compared to 91% in the outpatient setting. In inpatient settings, survey non-completion was typically due to participant unavailability; this was rarely a reason in the outpatient setting. A total of 93.4% of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with using the CAT. It was found that 6.36 hours of research assistant time would be required to gather a valid quantity of patient feedback for a single resident in the outpatient setting, compared to 10.14 hours in the inpatient setting. CONCLUSIONS: Although collecting feedback using our standardized protocol is acceptable to patients, obtaining sufficient feedback requires overcoming several barriers and a sizable time commitment. Feedback collection in the outpatient setting may be higher yield than in the inpatient setting due to greater patient/family availability. Future work should focus on innovative methods to gather patient feedback in the inpatient setting to provide program directors with a holistic view of their residents' communication skills.

The Effect of Faculty Coaching on Resident Attitudes, Confidence, and Patient-Rated Communication: A Multi-Institutional Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Despite a national focus on physician-patient communication, there is a paucity of literature on how patient and family feedback (PFF) can be used as a tool to help residents learn communication skills. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of coaching on residents' attitudes towards PFF, self-confidence in communication, and patient-rated communication skills. METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved, randomized-controlled trial with pediatric residents at 3 institutions from 2015 to 2016. Pre- and postintervention, residents completed a self-assessment of their attitudes and self-confidence in communication. PFF was collected for each resident using the Communication Assessment Tool, which has been validated in other medical disciplines. Intervention group residents reviewed their baseline PFF with a faculty coach; control group residents reviewed their PFF independently. RESULTS: In total, 114 residents completed the study, 57 in each arm. Intervention group residents were significantly more likely to ask for PFF compared with control group residents (mean change 0.36 vs -0.11, P = .01). There were no other significant differences in resident attitudes, confidence, or patient-rated communication between groups. Both groups had increased self-confidence over time and with increasing postgraduate year level. Patient ratings of resident communication did not differ over time or between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Residents who reviewed PFF with a faculty coach were significantly more likely to report they would ask patients for feedback than residents who reviewed PFF independently, suggesting review of feedback with a coach may enhance appreciation of patient feedback. Although self-confidence improved over time in both groups, patient ratings of resident communication skills were not significantly different over time or between groups.

How Residents Learn From Patient Feedback: A Multi-Institutional Qualitative Study of Pediatrics Residents' Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Residents may view feedback from patients and their families with greater skepticism than feedback from supervisors and peers. While discussing patient and family feedback with faculty may improve residents' acceptance of feedback and learning, specific strategies have not been identified. OBJECTIVE: We explored pediatrics residents' perspectives of patient feedback and identified strategies that promote residents' reflection on and learning from feedback. METHODS: In this multi-institutional, qualitative study conducted in June and July 2016, we conducted focus groups with a purposive sample of pediatrics residents after their participation in a randomized controlled trial in which they received written patient feedback and either discussed it with faculty or reviewed it independently. Focus group transcripts were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes using the constant comparative approach associated with grounded theory. RESULTS: Thirty-six of 92 (39%) residents participated in 7 focus groups. Four themes emerged: (1) residents valued patient feedback but felt it may lack the specificity they desire; (2) discussing feedback with a trusted faculty member was helpful for self-reflection; (3) residents identified 5 strategies faculty used to facilitate their openness to and acceptance of patient feedback (eg, help resident overcome emotional responses to feedback and situate feedback in the context of lifelong learning); and (4) residents' perceptions of feedback credibility improved when faculty observed patient encounters and solicited feedback on the resident's behalf prior to discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Discussing patient feedback with faculty provided important scaffolding to enhance residents' openness to and reflection on patient feedback.

Validity Evidence From Ratings of Pediatric Interns and Subinterns on a Subset of Pediatric Milestones.

PURPOSE: To investigate evidence for validity of faculty members' pediatric milestone (PM) ratings of interns (first-year residents) and subinterns (fourth-year medical students) on nine subcompetencies related to readiness to serve as a pediatric intern in the inpatient setting. METHOD: The Association of Pediatric Program Directors Longitudinal Educational Assessment Research Network (APPD LEARN) and the National Board of Medical Examiners collaborated to investigate the utility of assessments of the PMs for trainees' performance. Data from 32 subinterns and 179 interns at 17 programs were collected from July 2012 through April 2013. Observers used several tools to assess learners. At each site, a faculty member used these data to make judgments about the learner's current developmental milestone in each subcompetency. Linear mixed models were fitted to milestone judgments to examine their relationship with learner's rank and subcompetency. RESULTS: On a 5-point developmental scale, mean milestone levels for interns ranged from 3.20 (for the subcompetency Work effectively as a member of a team) to 3.72 (Humanism) and for subinterns from 2.89 (Organize and prioritize care) to 3.61 (Professionalization). Mean milestone ratings were significantly higher for the Professionalism competency (3.59-3.72) for all trainees compared with Patient Care (2.89-3.24) and Personal and Professional Development (3.33-3.51). Mean intern ratings were significantly higher than mean subintern ratings for all nine subcompetencies except Professionalization, Humanism, and Trustworthiness. CONCLUSIONS: The PMs had a coherent internal structure and could distinguish between differing levels of trainees, which supports their validation for documenting developmental progression of pediatric trainees.