Evaluation of Nursing Coursework for Biased Content.

ABSTRACT: Bias-free content in nursing education prepares students to provide equitable care. The process of assessing content promotes the dismantling of systemic bias in health care, advancing social justice, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Unfortunately, there are no published studies to guide the evaluation of nursing curricula for the presence of bias. This innovative project aimed to identify bias in a course and develop a structure to guide the wider evaluation of the curriculum to identify and remove biased content. A modified version of the Upstate Bias Checklist was applied to a 15-week, three-semester hour, prelicensure, graduate-level nursing course.

Expert Consensus Guidelines for Assessing Students on the Social Determinants of Health.

PHENOMENON: Assessment and evaluation guidelines inform programmatic changes necessary for educational effectiveness. Presently, no widely accepted guidelines exist for educators to assess learners and evaluate programs regarding social determinants of health (SDOH) during physician and physician assistant (PA) education. We sought to garner expert consensus about effective SDOH learner assessment and program evaluation, so as to make recommendations for best practices related to SDOH education. APPROACH: We used a Delphi approach to conduct our study (September 2019 to December 2020). To administer our Delphi survey, we followed a three-step process: 1) literature review, 2) focus groups and semi-structured interviews, 3) question development and refinement. The final survey contained 72 items that addressed SDOH content areas, assessment methods, assessors, assessment integration, and program evaluation. Survey participants included 14 SDOH experts at US medical schools and PA programs. The survey was circulated for three rounds seeking consensus, and when respondents reached consensus on a particular question, that question was removed from subsequent rounds. FINDINGS: The geographically diverse sample of experts reached consensus on many aspects of SDOH assessment and evaluation. The experts selected three important areas to assess learners' knowledge, skills, and attitudes about SDOH. They identified assessment methods that were "essential", "useful, but not essential", and "not necessary." The essential assessment methods are performance rating scales for knowledge and attitudes and skill-based assessments. They favored faculty and patients as assessors, as well as learner self-assessment, over assessments conducted by other health professionals. Questions about separation versus incorporation of SDOH assessment with other educational assessment did not yield consensus opinion. The experts reached consensus on priority outcome measures to evaluate a school's SDOH program which included student attitudes toward SDOH, Competence-Based Assessment Scales, and the percentage of graduates involved in health equity initiatives. INSIGHTS: Based on the Delphi survey results, we make five recommendations that medical and PA educators can apply now when designing learner assessments and evaluating SDOH programming. These recommendations include what should be assessed, using what methods, who should do the assessments, and how they should be incorporated into the curriculum. This expert consensus should guide future development of an assessment and evaluation toolkit to optimize SDOH education and clinical practice.Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2022.2045490 .

Assessment and Evaluation in Social Determinants of Health Education: a National Survey of US Medical Schools and Physician Assistant Programs.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDOH) curricular content in medical schools and physician assistant programs are increasing. However, there is little understanding of current practice in SDOH learner assessment and program evaluation, or what the best practices are. OBJECTIVE: Our study aim was to describe the current landscape of assessment and evaluation at US medical schools and physician assistant programs as a first step in developing best practices in SDOH education. DESIGN: We conducted a national survey of SDOH educators from July to December 2020. The 55-item online survey covered learner assessment methods, program evaluation, faculty training, and barriers to effective assessment and evaluation. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred six SDOH educators representing 26% of medical schools and 23% of PA programs in the USA completed the survey. KEY RESULTS: Most programs reported using a variety of SDOH learner assessment methods. Faculty and self were the most common assessors of learners' SDOH knowledge, attitudes, and skills. Common barriers to effective learner assessment were lack of agreement on "SDOH competency" and lack of faculty training in assessment. Programs reported using evaluation results to refine curricular content, identify the need for new content, and improve assessment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a heterogeneity of SDOH assessment and evaluation practices among programs, as well as gaps and barriers in their educational practices. Specific guidance from accrediting bodies and professional organizations and agreement on SDOH competency as well as providing faculty with time, resources, and training will improve assessment and evaluation practice and ensure SDOH education is effective for students, patients, and communities.

Can Peer Assessment Impact Self-efficacy During Small-Group Learning?

INTRODUCTION: While studies report positive correlations between students' perceptions of the learning environment and their reported self-efficacy, the role of peer assessment is poorly understood in this context. This study examines the process and impact of peer assessment on self-efficacy and perceptions of the learning environment during a small-group discussion-based course required of first-year medical students. METHODS: After spending time in small-group learning, students completed three peer assessments and reviewed three assessments of themselves. Analysis of the peer assessments included thematic coding of comments and word counts. Prior to and following the assessment period, students completed a survey including the Generalized Self-efficacy (GSE) Scale, and six locally-developed questions regarding the learning environment and perceptions of peer assessment. We performed paired-sample t tests to determine whether there were differences between the pre- and post-peer assessment surveys. The SUNY Upstate Institutional Review Board reviewed the study and determined it to be exempt. RESULTS: Peer assessment narratives referred most commonly to students' participation style and the need for greater participation. Word counts ranged widely. A paired sample t test indicated that the difference between pre and post peer assessment GSE scores was significant (P=.009), but the effect size was small (d=0.32). Perceptions of the learning environment did not change after the peer assessments. CONCLUSION: Peer assessment offers a potential strategy for enhancing self-efficacy in medical school small-group learning environments and requires few resources to implement, relative to the potential benefits.

Conscientious Objection to Providing Gender Health Care in Pediatric Training: Balancing the Vulnerability of Transgender Youth and the Vulnerability of Pediatric Residents.

Within pediatric graduate medical education, the care of transgender youth presents opportunities for deepening learners' understanding of equity, access, the role of the physician as an advocate, and health disparities caused by stigma and minority stress. However, when a pediatric resident objects to providing health care to this uniquely vulnerable population owing to their personal beliefs and values, how should pediatrician-educators respond? Important reasons to respect healthcare professionals' conscience have been described in the scholarly literature; however, equally important concerns have also been raised about the extent to which conscientious objection should be permitted in a pluralistic society, particularly given power differentials that favor healthcare professionals and grants them a monopoly over certain services. In the context of medical education, however, residents are in a unique position: they are simultaneously learners and employees, and although privileged relative to their patients, they are also vulnerable in relation to the hierarchy of healthcare and of institutions. We must find a compassionate balance between nurturing the evolving conscience of students and trainees and protecting the health and well-being of our most vulnerable patients. Educators have an obligation to foster empathy, mitigate bias, and mentor their learners, regardless of beliefs, but in some cases, they may recognize that there are limits: patients' welfare ultimately takes precedence and trainees should be guided toward alternative career paths. We explore the limits of conscientious objection in medical training and propose a framework for pediatrician-educators to support learners and patients in challenging circumstances.

Acquiescence is Not Agreement: The Problem of Marginalization in Pediatric Decision Making.

Although parents are the default legal surrogate decision-makers for minor children in the U.S., shared decision making in a pluralistic society is often much more complicated, involving not just parents and pediatricians, but also grandparents, other relatives, and even community or religious elders. Parents may not only choose to involve others in their children's healthcare decisions but choose to defer to another; such deference does not imply agreement with the decision being made and adds complexity when disagreements arise between surrogate decision-makers for minor children and their physicians. I argue that clinicians and ethicists have a duty to consider voices marginalized by hierarchical structures, including but not limited to gender-based inequalities. This approach involves negotiating potential conflicts: between respecting differences of culture and religion, on one hand, and assuring that the wishes of those who are most invested in children's lives are considered, on the other.

"Prix Fixe" or "À La Carte"? Pediatric Decision Making When the Goals of Care Lie in the Zone of Parental Discretion.

For many children with complex medical conditions, decisions regarding their goals of care lie in the zone of parental discretion. That is, clinicians appropriately recognize that in many cases whether to prioritize quantity of life or quality of life is a deeply personal, values-laden decision best made by those who are most deeply invested in the outcome. Once a family has committed to a goal, however, there may be new or ongoing conflict between parents and clinicians regarding the specific interventions provided or not provided in support of that goal. To what extent is it ethically permissible for a seriously ill child's surrogate decision makers to reject individual interventions that support their desired goal of care? This question might be best described thus: is pediatric healthcare "prix fixe," in which clinicians help parents decide the best of one or more set combinations ("menus") of interventions, or is it "à la carte," in which parents are free to accept or reject each individual intervention? We argue that the concept of a "prix fixe" approach should be discussed with families early in the development of the clinical relationship, as an essential facet of shared decision making.

"The stakes could not be higher": A mixed methods study of parental social media use in pediatric oncology.

BACKGROUND: To describe how parents and families of children with cancer evaluate the benefits and risks of using social media (SM) and how they navigate disagreements between oncologists' advice and information found on SM. PROCEDURE: Parents of children who had been previously diagnosed with cancer, and who had used SM for a purpose related to that child's health were recruited through SM sites and nonprofit organizations across the United States and were invited to complete questionnaires about their experiences using SM; a subset of participants also completed a follow-up in-depth interview. Open-ended responses and interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ninety parents completed written questionnaires; 21 completed follow-up interviews. Seventy percent reported experiencing a situation in which information shared on SM conflicted with information provided by their child's oncologist. Although 86% reported that they discussed the conflicting information with the oncologist and 70% described the oncologist's response as positive, 78% also described ongoing negative feelings about the experience. Parents described openness to discussing SM, honesty, transparency, and humility regarding the limits of medicine, and shared decision-making regarding information found on SM as increasing their trust in their oncologist. CONCLUSIONS: Parents offered valuable insights regarding their experiences navigating SM, including eight recommendations for how pediatricians might approach discussing parental SM use. Future studies will evaluate the utility of these recommendations for pediatric clinicians.

The Last Bastion of Paternalism? A Reflection on Proceduralism, Power, and Privilege.

The two cases presented here may at first seem very different: one patient was an adult, making autonomous decisions for herself and her fetus; the other was a child too young to meaningfully participate in the most significant decisions regarding his health. In both cases, healthcare professionals had to determine the extent to which the parents of a dying fetus or child should be permitted to make agonizing choices about how long to maintain hope and what that death will look like; and in both, health professionals' prognostications influenced their judgments about the patients' best interests and whether they were candidates for certain interventions. While members of both healthcare teams questioned the patients' and families' ability to objectively consider the risks and benefits, the families were focused on the need to be able to live with the decisions made, regardless of outcome. Clinicians expressed unwillingness to perform physical actions they felt were more likely to promote harm and suffering than benefit, and experienced attendant moral distress in the face of conflicting values. In this regard, these cases are mirror images: only in the first case did the clinician, an obstetrician, have sufficient professional authority to refuse to perform the desired intervention. In the second case, the clinicians who expressed the most distress regarding the patient's trajectory were the nurses, who largely lacked similar autonomy. Viewed together, these cases share a core question: What does paternalism look like in the contemporary era?

Social Media in the Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Clinical Space.

Parents and families of children with cancer and blood disorders increasingly turn to social media to connect with families facing similar challenges. These multidirectional interactions on social media are not only sources of psychosocial support but frequently sources of medical information. Consequently, such interactions have the potential to meaningfully impact the relationships between parents, children, and pediatric hematology/oncology providers. The 3 case studies analyzed here illustrate the spectrum of ethical and communication issues that arise when families' use of social media enters the pediatric clinical space, including questions related to trust and mistrust, misinformation, patient privacy and confidentiality, and allocation of resources, including time. Ideal approaches to resolving dilemmas related to parental social media use are those that maintain respect, build trust, and acknowledge the changing culture. Social media use is now the norm. Promoting transparent discussions of its use between families and health professionals is, therefore, the key to optimizing health outcomes for children whose parents turn to social media. Mutual respect, collaboration, and long-term relationships are also potential antidotes to the spread of misinformation and mistrust through social media.

The need for empathetic healthcare systems.

Medicine is not merely a job that requires technical expertise, but a profession concerned with making the best decisions and recommendations with reference to, and in consultation with, the patient. This means that the skill set required for healthcare professionals in order to provide good care is a combination of scientific knowledge, technical aptitude, and affective qualities or virtues such as compassion and empathy.

Seeking a Second Opinion on Social Media.

Social media pervades all aspects of our lives. In medicine, it has changed the ways that patients and parents get health information, advocate for particular treatments for themselves and their children, and raise money for expensive treatments. In this Ethics Rounds, we present a case in which the use of social media seemed to cross the boundaries of acceptable professionalism. What should the ground rules be for doctors who are tempted to give medical opinions online about patients whom they have never seen?

Reconceiving Decisions at the End of Life in Pediatrics: Decision-Making as a Form of Ritual.

Medical anthropologists have long recognized that healing practices and rituals may seek to address family dynamics, alter roles within a community, and resolve social rifts, and that illness itself may be rooted in social and cultural concerns as much as physical and biological ones. Within this framework, decision-making for children at the end of life can be conceptualized as a type of healing ritual, directed not at physical healing of the individual body, but at the healing of a family, which will continue beyond the patient's death. Using this lens, the decision-making process becomes more important than the decisions themselves, as it is the process itself that initiates, or interferes with, family healing. This essay presents anthropological perspectives on the goals of healing and healing rituals, providing examples in which the recipient of healing was not the patient but the family or community. Drawing on this scholarship, the author reconceives decision-making at the end of life in pediatrics as a form of healing ritual, explores how this perspective might help clinicians to reframe situations that provoke moral and empathic distress, and analyzes the ethical implications of these arguments.

Who Deserves Access to Care in Children's Hospitals?

An eighteen-year-old with sickle cell disease was admitted to the pediatric hematology service at his local children's hospital for management of an acute pain crisis, one of many such admissions. He had a good relationship with his primary hematologist and primary nurse, but with other health care providers, there was evident friction. Sometimes, he was simply rude, rolling over and pretending to sleep in response to questions about his symptoms. When frustrated or convinced that his pain was not being addressed appropriately, he was prone to yelling and cursing at his nurses. After members of the health care team complained, their supervisor decided to transfer the patient to an adult general medicine service. Reasons cited for the transition included the stressful work environment created by the patient's actions, his refusal to follow directives from staff (although he was generally adherent to treatment), and the hypothetical harm to other young patients who might witness his behavior. Was this a just outcome? Is it ever permissible to deny access to pediatric care to a patient whose best interests would be served by it? Can access be withheld for "bad" behavior, and can transfer of care be wielded as a punishment?