Third year medical students impersonalize and hedge when providing negative upward feedback to clinical faculty.

Medical students provide clinical teaching faculty with feedback on their skills as educators through anonymous surveys at the end of their clerkship rotation. Because faculty are in a position of power, students are hesitant to provide candid feedback. Our objective was to determine if medical students were willing to provide negative upward feedback to clinical faculty and describe how they conveyed their feedback. A qualitative analysis of third year medical students' open-ended comments from evaluations of six clerkships was performed using politeness theory as a conceptual framework. Students were asked to describe how the clerkship enhanced their learning and how it could be improved. Midway through the academic year, instructions to provide full names of faculty/residents was added. Overall, there were significantly more comments on what worked well than suggestions for improvement regarding faculty/residents. Instructing students to name-names increased the rate of naming from 35% to 75% for what worked well and from 13% to 39% for suggestions for improvement. Hedging language was included in 61% of suggestions for improvement, but only 2% of what worked well. Students described the variability of their experience, used passive language and qualified negative experiences with positive ones. Medical students may use linguistic strategies, such as impersonalizing and hedging, to mitigate the impact of negative upward feedback. Working towards a culture that supports upward feedback would allow students to feel more comfortable providing candid comments about their experience.

Incoming Interns Perceived Preparedness for Core Entrustable Professional Activities.

INTRODUCTION: The AAMC described 13 core entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for which every graduating medical student should perform proficiently on day 1 of residency. We studied how prepared starting interns felt in the core EPAs. METHODS: Interns from a diverse health system were surveyed on how well medical school prepared them in the 13 core EPAs. Data were collected on type of medical school, participation in an acting/sub-internship (AI/SI), knowledge of EPAs, and participation in an EPA experience. RESULTS: We collected 224 surveys out of 384 (58%) interns. 61.2% attended allopathic, 14.6% attended osteopathic, and 24.2% attended international schools. 67% had not heard of EPAs. 29% had an EPA experience of which 82% were required. 80% or more felt prepared in all EPAs except orders (60.7%) and handovers (73%). Allopathic interns were significantly more likely to have heard of EPAs and participated in an EPA experience than international. Allopathic interns felt more prepared than international in oral presentations and evidence-based medicine. Interns who participated in an EPA experience felt more prepared for oral presentation and evidence-based medicine. There were small but significant differences in feeling prepared in certain EPAs and types of AI/SI taken. CONCLUSION: The majority of interns entering residency have not heard of EPAs with fewer than 1/3 of interns participating in an EPA experience. International graduates were less likely to be aware or have experience with EPAs and report being less prepared in oral presentation and evidence-based medicine compared to allopathic graduates.

Incorporation of an Interprofessional Palliative Care-Ethics Experience Into a Required Critical Care Acting Internship.

Introduction: The literature documents inadequate palliative medicine training in undergraduate and graduate medical education. As the population lives longer, many people will experience multiple chronic illnesses and the associated symptom burden. All physicians involved in clinical care of patients need to be equipped with the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to provide palliative care, yet most physicians do not feel adequately prepared. We designed a curriculum to provide a meaningful palliative care-ethics (PCE) clinical experience to prepare senior medical students for future practice regardless of specialty choice. Methods: The Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell integrated a PCE experience into the required 4-week acting internship in critical care (AICC). Students met weekly with an interprofessional faculty member and presented clinical cases focusing on communication and/or bioethical challenges. Faculty facilitators ensured that the presentations integrated discussion of communication skills. During the final session, students shared written reflections. Students were invited to complete a satisfaction survey postrotation and 1 year after graduation. Results: The curriculum was evaluated positively by the graduating classes of 2015 (n = 28) and 2016 (n = 56) at the end of the course and 1 year postgraduation. Qualitative analysis of the class of 2018 fourth-year students' reflective writing demonstrated themes of role modeling, suffering, family, and goals of care. Discussion: It is feasible to incorporate an interprofessional PCE experience into a required AICC. Students indicated a better understanding of palliative care and, at 1 year postgraduation, reported feeling comfortable caring for patients with serious illness.

Program Director Perceptions of Proficiency in the Core Entrustable Professional Activities.

BACKGROUND: The Association of American Medical Colleges describes 13 core entrustable professional activities (EPAs) that every graduating medical student should be expected to perform proficiently on day 1 of residency, regardless of chosen specialty. Studies have shown wide variability in program director (PD) confidence in interns' abilities to perform these core EPAs. Little is known regarding comparison of United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores with proficiency in EPAs. OBJECTIVE: We determined if PDs from a large health system felt confident in their postgraduate year 1 residents' abilities to perform the 13 core EPAs, and compared perceived EPA proficiency with USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 scores. METHODS: The PDs were asked to rate their residents' proficiency in each EPA and to provide residents' USMLE scores. Timing coincided with the reporting period for resident milestones. RESULTS: Surveys were completed on 204 of 328 residents (62%). PDs reported that 69% of residents (140 of 204) were prepared for EPA 4 (orders/prescriptions), 61% (117 of 192) for EPA 7 (form clinical questions), 68% (135 of 198) for EPA 8 (handovers), 63% (116 of 185) for EPA 11 (consent), and 38% (49 of 129) for EPA 13 (patient safety). EPA ratings and USMLE 1 and 2 were negatively correlated (r(101) = -0.23, P = .031). CONCLUSIONS: PDs felt that a significant percentage of residents were not adequately prepared in order writing, forming clinical questions, handoffs, informed consent, and promoting a culture of patient safety. We found no positive association between USMLE scores and EPA ratings.