What Do Pediatric Subinterns Say About Their Learning and Assessment? A Qualitative Analysis of Individual Learning Plans.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a qualitative content analysis of learning and assessment strategies that pediatric subinterns describe in Individualized Learning Plans (ILPs) and to explore barriers and facilitators to their learning. METHODS: We analyzed ILPs from medical students enrolled in pediatric subinternships at 10 US medical schools that utilized a standardized curriculum and were recruited to reflect diversity in geographic location, funding, and enrollment. Students used an ILP to record 3 or more selected learning objectives, rationale for selection, and reflection on learning and assessment strategies. Investigators used the constant comparative method to perform a content analysis of the ILPs, grouping codes into themes, and verifying relationships between codes within themes. RESULTS: Two hundred and four ILPs that included student reflections on 850 learning objectives were analyzed. Content was analyzed in 5 categories: rationale for selecting objectives, learning strategies, assessment strategies, challenges to learning, and facilitators of learning. Students showed strong commitment to individualized, self-directed learning, developed a wide range of creative learning strategies, and relied heavily on self-reflection to assess their progress. The learning environment both helped and hindered students' ability to make and assess progress on their selected learning objectives. CONCLUSIONS: Through ILP-guided reflection and a formal curriculum, students can choose well-justified learning objectives and demonstrate resourcefulness and independence in developing self-directed learning and assessment strategies. The strategies that students identified in this study provide a menu of learning and assessment options for subinterns. Identified challenges and facilitators of learning provide guidance for educators who seek to enhance the clinical learning environment.

Mitigating "Educational Groundhog Day" - The Role of Learner Handoffs Within Clinical Rotations: A Survey of Pediatric Educational Leaders.

BACKGROUND: Medical students decry frequent changes in faculty supervision, leading to the experience of "educational groundhog day." The discontinuity in supervision, cursory relationships, and uncoordinated feedback impede students' skill acquisition and delay entrustment decisions. Whereas patient handoff bundles are common, little is known about similarly structured approaches to learner handoffs (LHs). OBJECTIVE: To describe current LH procedures and practices within pediatric clerkships and subinternships and to gauge interest in a future LH bundle. METHODS: Nine items included in the 2016 Council on Medical Student Education in Pediatrics annual member survey were analyzed using mixed-methods. RESULTS: The response rates were 66% (101 of 152) and 40% (165 of 411) for institutions and individuals, respectively. After limiting data to complete responses to programs with traditional block rotations, 54% of individual respondents (76 of 141) identified as inpatient faculty and about a quarter endorsed providing LHs. Inpatient faculty most commonly supervise medical students for 5 to 7 days. Most endorsed needing 1 to 3 days to determine a student's baseline performance and 5 days or more to make entrustment decisions. Three-quarters of inpatient faculty endorsed interest in LHs, while fewer than 16% of course directors currently provide LH expectations. Four themes emerged: instrument features, stakeholder buy-in, impact, and utility. CONCLUSIONS: Typical inpatient faculty service days approximate the time required for making entrustment decisions about clinical students. While most inpatient faculty desire a LH bundle for use within a clinical rotation, few institutions and faculty currently use LHs. LHs could accelerate entrustment decisions by allowing coordinated feedback that might hasten learner clinical-skill development.

Collecting Validity Evidence: A Hands-on Workshop for Medical Education Assessment Instruments.

Introduction: There is an increasing call for developing validity evidence in medical education assessment. The literature lacks a practical resource regarding an actual development process. Our workshop teaches how to apply principles of validity evidence to existing assessment instruments and how to develop new instruments that will yield valid data. Methods: The literature, consensus findings of curricula and content experts, and principles of adult learning guided the content and methodology of the workshop. The workshop underwent stringent peer review prior to presentation at one international and three national academic conferences. In the interactive workshop, selected domains of validity evidence were taught with sequential cycles of didactics, demonstration, and deliberate practice with facilitated feedback. An exercise guide steered participants through a stepwise approach. Using Likert-scale items and open-response questions, an evaluation form rated the workshop's effectiveness, captured details of how learners reached the objectives, and determined participants' plans for future work. Results: The workshop demonstrated generalizability with successful implementation in diverse settings. Sixty-five learners, the majority being clinician-educators, completed evaluations. Learners rated the workshop favorably for each prompt. Qualitative comments corroborated the workshop's effectiveness. The active application and facilitated feedback components allowed learners to reflect in real time as to how they were meeting a particular objective. Discussion: This feasible and practical educational intervention fills a literature gap by showing the medical educator how to apply validity evidence to both existing and in-development assessment instruments. Thus, it holds the potential to significantly impact learner and, subsequently, patient outcomes.