Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2023.

The expansive scope of internal medicine can make it challenging for clinicians to stay informed about new literature that changes practice. Guideline updates and synthesis of relevant evidence can facilitate incorporation of advancements into clinical practice. The titles and abstracts from the seven general medicine journals with highest impact factors and relevance to outpatient internal medicine were reviewed by six internal medicine physicians. Coronavirus disease 19 research was excluded. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The British Medical Journal (BMJ), Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings were reviewed. Additionally, article synopsis collections and databases were evaluated: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster ACCESSSS/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on clinical relevance to outpatient internal medicine, potential impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Article qualities and importance were debated until consensus was reached. Clusters of articles pertinent to the same topic were considered together. In total, seven practice-changing articles were included.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2022.

It can be difficult for clinicians to stay updated on practice-changing articles.  Synthesis of relevant articles and guideline updates can facilitate staying informed on important new data impacting clinical practice.  The titles and abstracts from the 7 general internal medicine outpatient journals with highest impact factors and relevance were reviewed by 8 internal medicine physicians. Coronavirus disease 2019 research was excluded.  The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, The British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine, and Public Library of Science Medicine were reviewed. Additionally, article synopsis collections and databases were reviewed: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on clinical relevance to outpatient internal medicine, potential impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Article qualities and importance were debated until consensus was reached. Clusters of articles pertinent to the same topic were considered together. In total, 5 practice-changing articles were included, along with a highlight of key guideline updates.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2021.

It can be challenging to identify new evidence that may shift clinical practice within internal medicine. Synthesis of relevant articles and guideline updates can facilitate staying informed of these changes. The titles and abstracts from the 7 general internal medicine outpatient journals with highest impact factors and relevance were reviewed by 8 internal medicine physicians. Coronavirus disease 2019 research was excluded. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The British Medical Journal (BMJ), Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine, and Public Library of Science Medicine were reviewed. Additionally, article synopsis collections and databases were reviewed: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on clinical relevance to outpatient internal medicine, potential impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Article qualities and importance were debated until consensus was reached. Clusters of articles pertinent to the same topic were considered together. In total, 8 practice-changing articles were included.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2020.

In a time of rapidly shifting evidence-based medicine, it is challenging to stay informed of research that modifies clinical practice. To enhance knowledge of practice-changing literature, a group of 7 internists reviewed titles and abstracts in 7 internal medicine journals with the highest impact factors and relevance to outpatient general internal medicine. Coronavirus disease-19 research was purposely excluded to highlight practice changes beyond the pandemic. New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), JAMA Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine were reviewed. The following collections of article synopses and databases were also reviewed: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on relevance to outpatient internal medicine, impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Clusters of articles pertaining to the same topic were considered together. In total, 7 practice-changing articles were included.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2019.

Clinicians are challenged to stay informed of new and changing medical literature. To facilitate knowledge updates and synthesis of practice-changing information, a group of 6 internists reviewed the titles and abstracts in the 7 outpatient general internal medicine journals with the highest impact factors and relevance to outpatient internal medicine physicians: New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), JAMA Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine. The following collections of article synopses and databases were also reviewed: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on clinical relevance to outpatient internal medicine, potential impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Article qualities and importance were debated until consensus was reached. Clusters of articles pertaining to the same topic were considered together. In total, 7 practice-changing articles were included.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2018.

The expansive scope of general internal medicine makes it difficult to identify practice-changing medical literature. Clinical updates can be facilitated by synthesizing relevant articles and implications for practice. Six internal medicine physicians reviewed the titles and abstracts in the 7 general internal medicine clinical outpatient journals with the highest impact factor and relevance to the internal medicine outpatient physician: New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), JAMA-Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine. The following collections of article synopses and databases were also reviewed: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based medicine, McMaster/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus on articles based on clinical relevance to outpatient Internal Medicine, potential impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Article qualities and importance were debated until consensus was reached. Clusters of articles pertinent to the same topic were considered together. In total, 7 practice-changing articles were included.

Validation of a clinical rotation evaluation for physician assistant students.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a prospective validation study to develop a physician assistant (PA) clinical rotation evaluation (PACRE) instrument. The specific aims of this study were to 1) develop a tool to evaluate PA clinical rotations, and 2) explore associations between validated rotation evaluation scores and characteristics of the students and rotations. METHODS: The PACRE was administered to rotating PA students at our institution in 2016. Factor analysis, internal consistency reliability, and associations between PACRE scores and student or rotation characteristics were determined. RESULTS: Of 206 PACRE instruments sent, 124 were returned (60.2% response). Factor analysis supported a unidimensional model with a mean (SD) score of 4.31 (0.57) on a 5-point scale. Internal consistency reliability was excellent (Cronbach α=0.95). PACRE scores were associated with students' gender (P = .01) and rotation specialty (P = .006) and correlated with students' perception of being prepared (r = 0.32; P < .001) and value of the rotation (r = 0.57; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first validated instrument to evaluate PA rotation experiences. Application of the PACRE questionnaire could inform rotation directors about ways to improve clinical experiences. The findings of this study suggest that PA students must be adequately prepared to have a successful experience on their rotations. PA programs should consider offering transition courses like those offered in many medical schools to prepare their students for clinical experiences. Future research should explore whether additional rotation characteristics and educational outcomes are associated with PACRE scores.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2017.

Clinicians are challenged to identify new practice-changing articles in the medical literature. To identify the practice-changing articles published in 2017 most relevant to outpatient general internal medicine, 5 internists reviewed the following sources: 1) titles and abstracts from internal medicine journals with the 7 highest impact factors, including New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, Public Library of Science Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and JAMA Internal Medicine; 2) synopses and syntheses of individual studies, including collections in the American College of Physicians Journal Club, Journal Watch, and Evidence-Based Medicine; 3) databases of synthesis, including Evidence Updates and the Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were perceived clinical relevance to outpatient general medicine, potential for practice change, and strength of evidence. This process yielded 140 articles. Clusters of important articles around one topic were considered as a single-candidate series. A modified Delphi method was utilized by the 5 authors to reach consensus on 7 topics to highlight and appraise from the 2017 literature.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2015.

Identifying new practice-changing articles is challenging. To determine the 2015 practice-changing articles most relevant to outpatient general internal medicine, 3 internists independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of original articles, synopses of single studies and syntheses, and databases of syntheses. For original articles, internal medicine journals with the 7 highest impact factors were reviewed: New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), British Medical Journal, Public Library of Science Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and JAMA Internal Medicine. For synopses of single studies and syntheses, collections in American College of Physicians Journal Club, Journal Watch, and Evidence-Based Medicine were reviewed. For databases of synthesis, Evidence Updates and the Cochrane Library were reviewed. More than 100 articles were identified. Criteria for inclusion were as follows: clinical relevance, potential for practice change, and strength of evidence. Clusters of important articles around one topic were considered as a single-candidate series. The 5 authors used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus on inclusion of 7 topics for in-depth appraisal.

Flipping the Continuing Medical Education Classroom: Validating a Measure of Attendees' Perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: New teaching approaches for CME are needed. In flipped classrooms, coursework is completed beforehand and applied during class time. Studies of flipped classrooms and their potential benefits in CME have not been published. We sought to develop and validate an instrument measuring flipped classroom perceptions, identify whether participation changed perceptions, and determine which flipped classroom components were perceived as most effective. METHODS: In this cross-sectional validation study, 167 participants in the Mayo Clinic's 2015 Internal Medicine Board Review course received surveys. Online modules were developed to deliver content before flipped classroom courses on acid-base disorders and electrolyte disorders. A flipped classroom perception instrument (FCPI) was developed and validated. The FCPI, with eight items structured on 5-point Likert scales, was given to participants before and after their flipped classroom experiences. RESULTS: Of the 167 participants, 111 returned surveys. Flipped classroom perceptions improved, with mean (SD) FCPI scores increasing from 3.74 (0.75) to 3.94 (0.76) (P < .001). The percentage of participants who preferred flipped classrooms increased from 38% before the course to 53% after (P = .002). Positive changes in FCPI scores were unrelated to module completion. Most participants thought knowledge was enhanced by in-class sessions and online modules equally. DISCUSSION: The FCPI, the first validated measure of participants' perceptions of a CME flipped classroom, has strong validity evidence. Participants' perceptions of and preference for the flipped classroom improved after experiencing the flipped CME classroom. These findings support the need to further explore flipped classroom models in CME.

Update in outpatient general internal medicine: practice-changing evidence published in 2014.

The practice of outpatient general internal medicine requires a diverse and evolving knowledge base. General internists must identify practice-changing shifts in the literature and reflect on their impact. Accordingly, we conducted a review of practice-changing articles published in outpatient general internal medicine in 2014. To identify high-quality, clinically relevant publications, we reviewed all titles and abstracts published in the following primary data sources in 2014: New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. All 2014 primary data summaries from Journal Watch-General Internal Medicine and ACP JournalWise also were reviewed. The authors used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus on inclusion of 8 articles using the following criteria: clinical relevance to outpatient internal medicine, potential for practice change, and strength of evidence. Clusters of important articles around one clinical question were considered as a single-candidate series. The article merits were debated until consensus was reached on the final 8, spanning a variety of topics commonly encountered in outpatient general internal medicine.

Simulation technology for resuscitation training: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize current available data on simulation-based training in resuscitation for health care professionals. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus and reference lists of published reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Published studies of any language or date that enrolled health professions' learners to investigate the use of technology-enhanced simulation to teach resuscitation in comparison with no intervention or alternative training. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted in duplicate. We identified themes examining different approaches to curriculum design. We pooled results using random effects meta-analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: 182 studies were identified involving 16,636 participants. Overall, simulation-based training of resuscitation skills, in comparison to no intervention, appears effective regardless of assessed outcome, level of learner, study design, or specific task trained. In comparison to no intervention, simulation training improved outcomes of knowledge (Hedges' g) 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.29), process skill 1.13 (0.99-1.27), product skill 1.92 (1.26-2.60), time skill 1.77 (1.13-2.42) and patient outcomes 0.26 (0.047-0.48). In comparison with non-simulation intervention, learner satisfaction 0.79 (0.27-1.31) and process skill 0.35 (0.12-0.59) outcomes favored simulation. Studies investigating how to optimize simulation training found higher process skill outcomes in courses employing "booster" practice 0.13 (0.03-0.22), team/group dynamics 0.51 (0.06-0.97), distraction 1.76 (1.02-2.50) and integrated feedback 0.49 (0.17-0.80) compared to courses without these features. Most analyses reflected high between-study inconsistency (I(2) values >50%). CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-based training for resuscitation is highly effective. Design features of "booster" practice, team/group dynamics, distraction and integrated feedback improve effectiveness.

Measuring faculty reflection on medical grand rounds at Mayo Clinic: associations with teaching experience, clinical exposure, and presenter effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a new instrument for measuring participant reflection on continuing medical education (CME) and determine associations between the reflection instrument scores and CME presenter, participant, and presentation characteristics. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective validation study of presenters and faculty at the weekly medical grand rounds at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2011, through June 30, 2011. Eight items (5-point Likert scales) were developed on the basis of 4 reflection levels: habitual action, understanding, reflection, and critical reflection. Factor analysis was performed to account for clustered data. Interrater and internal consistency reliabilities were calculated. Associations between reflection scores and characteristics of presenters, participants, and presentations were determined. RESULTS: Participants completed a total of 1134 reflection forms. Factor analysis revealed a 2-dimensional model (eigenvalue; Cronbach α): minimal reflection (1.19; 0.77) and high reflection (2.51; 0.81). Item mean (SD) scores ranged from 2.97 (1.17) to 4.01 (0.83) on a 5-point scale. Interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) for individual items ranged from 0.58 (95% CI, 0.31-0.78) to 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80-0.94). Reflection scores were associated with presenters' speaking effectiveness (P<.001) and prior CME teaching experience (P=.02), participants' prior clinical experiences (P<.001), and presentations that were case based (P<.001) and used the audience response system (P<.001). CONCLUSION: We report the first validated measure of reflection on CME at medical grand rounds. Reflection scores were associated with presenters' effectiveness and prior teaching experience, participants' clinical exposures, and presentations that were interactive and clinically relevant. Future research should determine whether reflection on CME leads to better patient outcomes.

Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although technology-enhanced simulation is increasingly used in health professions education, features of effective simulation-based instructional design remain uncertain. AIMS: Evaluate the effectiveness of instructional design features through a systematic review of studies comparing different simulation-based interventions. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011. We included original research studies that compared one simulation intervention with another and involved health professions learners. Working in duplicate, we evaluated study quality and abstracted information on learners, outcomes, and instructional design features. We pooled results using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: From a pool of 10,903 articles we identified 289 eligible studies enrolling 18,971 trainees, including 208 randomized trials. Inconsistency was usually large (I2 > 50%). For skills outcomes, pooled effect sizes (positive numbers favoring the instructional design feature) were 0.68 for range of difficulty (20 studies; p < 0.001), 0.68 for repetitive practice (7 studies; p = 0.06), 0.66 for distributed practice (6 studies; p = 0.03), 0.65 for interactivity (89 studies; p < 0.001), 0.62 for multiple learning strategies (70 studies; p < 0.001), 0.52 for individualized learning (59 studies; p < 0.001), 0.45 for mastery learning (3 studies; p = 0.57), 0.44 for feedback (80 studies; p < 0.001), 0.34 for longer time (23 studies; p = 0.005), 0.20 for clinical variation (16 studies; p = 0.24), and -0.22 for group training (8 studies; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm quantitatively the effectiveness of several instructional design features in simulation-based education.