Longitudinal Faculty Development Program to Promote Effective Observation and Feedback Skills in Direct Clinical Observation.

Introduction: We developed a longitudinal faculty development program to maximize faculty training in direct clinical observation (DCO) and feedback, as there was a perceived need for higher quality of DCO and feedback. To achieve this, we created a behaviorally anchored DCO instrument and worked to improve faculty skills in this area. Methods: We describe an innovative model of faculty training that is learner centered and reinforces evidence-based principles of effective feedback that are introduced and then repeated in all sessions. The training centers on both peer-led observation of and feedback on faculty learners' recorded DCO feedback encounters, and is guided by our DCO instrument. Residents and faculty completed surveys to assess program impact. Qualitative responses were analyzed for themes. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to examine significance of difference in feedback quality before and after DCO faculty development education sessions. Results: Our faculty development program has been well received and had a significant impact on quality of faculty feedback, as rated by resident learners. Discussion: Our faculty development model is effective at growing faculty learners' DCO and feedback skills. Potential strengths of this program include the use of a behaviorally anchored DCO instrument, longitudinal and experiential faculty development, and use of small-group peer review of recorded faculty feedback encounters. We have found that when their learning needs are attended to, faculty learners cultivate a deep appreciation for principles of effective feedback. In fact, faculty feedback skills can be enhanced in the eyes of resident learners.

Near-peer role modeling: Can fourth-year medical students, recognized for their humanism, enhance reflection among second-year students in a physical diagnosis course?

INTRODUCTION: Humanism is cultivated through reflection and self-awareness. We aimed to employ fourth-year medical students, recognized for their humanism, to facilitate reflective sessions for second-year medical students with the intention of positively influencing reflective process toward humanistic development. METHODS/ANALYSIS: A total of 186 students were randomly assigned to one of three comparison arms: eight groups of eight students (64 students) were facilitated by a fourth-year student who was a Gold Humanism Honor Society member (GHHS); eight groups (64 students) by a volunteer non-GHHS student; and seven groups (58 students) were non-facilitated. Before sessions, second-year students set learning goals concerning interactions with patients; fourth-year students received training materials on facilitation. Groups met twice during their 10 clinical site visits. At the last session, students completed a reflective assignment on their goal progress. Comparative mixed method analyses were conducted among the three comparison arms on reflection (reflective score on in-session assignment) and session satisfaction (survey) in addition to a thematic analysis of responses on the in-session assignment. RESULTS: We found significant differences among all three comparison arms on students' reflective scores (p=0.0003) and satisfaction (p=0.0001). T-tests comparing GHHS- and non-GHHS-facilitated groups showed significantly higher mean reflective scores for GHHS-facilitated groups (p=0.033); there were no differences on session satisfaction. Thematic analysis of students' reflections showed attempts at self-examination, but lacked depth in addressing emotions. There was a common focus on achieving comfort and confidence in clinical skills performance. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: Near peers, recognized for their humanism, demonstrated significant influence in deepening medical students' reflections surrounding patient interactions or humanistic development. Overall, students preferred facilitated to non-facilitated peer feedback forums. This model holds promise for enhancing self-reflection in medical education, but needs further exploration to determine behavioral effects.

"How am I doing?" Teaching medical students to elicit feedback during their clerkships.

AIM: This study seeks to explore formative feedback during clerkships from the student perspective and to determine whether a modest intervention aimed at students can impact their attitudes or behavior regarding feedback interactions. BACKGROUND: Multiple studies document medical student dissatisfaction with a lack of feedback from attending physicians and housestaff regarding their performance during their clerkship rotations. While feedback is essential to skill building, and feedback-seeking a necessary component of self-awareness, studies indicate that little progress has been made in understanding or addressing these student concerns. METHODS: Participants included the entire third-year class of a medical school (n = 189). They were surveyed about their attitudes and experience with regard to receiving feedback during clerkships using both Likert-type questions and open-ended questions. Half of the class was assigned to receive a brief intervention, a workshop dealing with the nature of feedback and ways to actively elicit it from housestaff and attendings. RESULTS: Qualitative results indicated that students initially conceived of feedback as a linear process, from instructor to student, and they felt both the lack of time on the ward and instructors' apparent inapproachability were major barriers in receiving feedback. The group of students who attended the feedback workshop reported a positive change in their attitude toward obtaining feedback and a significant increase in their feedback-seeking behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Students can learn to assume a more active role in their learning interactions with instructors during their clerkships.

Curiosity and medical education.

CONTEXT: For doctors, curiosity is fundamental to understanding each patient's unique experience of illness, building respectful relationships with patients, deepening self-awareness, supporting clinical reasoning, avoiding premature closure and encouraging lifelong learning. Yet, curiosity has received limited attention in medical education and research, and studies from the fields of cognitive psychology and education suggest that common practices in medical education may inadvertently suppress curiosity. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify common barriers to and facilitators of curiosity and related habits of mind in the education of doctors. METHODS: We conducted a theory-driven conceptual exploration and qualitative review of the literature. RESULTS: Curiosity is related to inquisitiveness, reflection and mindfulness. Instructional practices can suppress curiosity by confusing haste with efficiency, neglecting negative emotions, promoting overconfidence and using teaching approaches that encourage passive learning. Curiosity tends to flourish in educational environments that promote the student's responsibility for his or her own learning, multiple perspectives and mindful reflection on both the subject and the learning process. Specific educational strategies that can support curiosity in classroom and clinical settings include the mindful pacing of teaching, modelling effective management of emotions, confronting uncertainty and overconfidence, using inquiry-based learning, helping students see familiar situations as novel, simultaneously considering multiple perspectives, and maximising the value of small-group discussions. Instructor attributes that contribute to the development of student curiosity include patience, a habit of inquiry, emotional candour, intellectual humility, transparency and recognition of the benefits to be gained in learning from peers. CONCLUSIONS: Curiosity, inquisitiveness and related habits of mind can be supported in medical education through specific, evidence-based instructional approaches. Medical educators should balance the teaching of facts, techniques and protocols with approaches that help students cultivate and sustain curiosity and wonder in the context-rich, often ambiguous world of clinical medicine.

Interpersonal skill in medicine: the essential partner of verbal communication.

Medical educators have promoted skillful communication as a means for doctors to develop positive relationships with their patients. In practice, communication tends to be defined primarily as what doctors say, with less attention to how, when, and to whom they say it. These latter elements of communication, which often carry the emotional content of the discourse, are usually referred to as interpersonal skills. Although recognized as important by some educators, interpersonal skills have received much less attention than task-oriented, verbal aspects. Moreover, the field lacks a common language and conceptualization for discussing them. This paper offers a framework for describing interpersonal skills and understanding their relationship to verbal communication and describes an interpersonal skill-set comprised of Understanding, Empathy, and Relational Versatility.

The effect of physician solicitation approaches on ability to identify patient concerns.

CONTEXT: Studies showing that physicians often interrupt the patient's opening statement assume that this compromises data collection. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between such interruptions and physician accuracy in identifying patient concerns. DESIGN: This study replicates the Beckman-Frankel methodology and adds exit interviews to assess physician understanding. The authors audiotaped a convenience sample of 70 encounters and surveyed both parties following the visit. SETTING: A community-based ambulatory clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Internal medicine residents (77%) and attending physicians and their adult, English-speaking patients who were primarily low income and ethnic minority. OUTCOME MEASURE: The Index of Understanding measures patient-physician problem list concordance. It is the percentage of patient problems, obtained on exit, that the physician correctly identifies. RESULTS: In 26% of the visits, patients were allowed to complete their agenda without interruption; in 37% the physicians interrupted; and in 37% no inquiry about agenda was made in the first 5 minutes. Neither physician experience nor their assessment of time pressure or medical difficulty was associated with these rates. Exit interviews showed no significant difference in Index of Understanding between those involving completion of agenda (84.6%) and those involving patient interruption (82.4%) (P=.83). But when the physician did not solicit an agenda, the concordance was 59.2%, significantly lower than either the completion (P=.014) or the interruption group (P=.013). CONCLUSION: Interruption as defined by Beckman-Frankel does not curtail ability to identify patient concerns, but failure to ask for the patient's agenda associates with a 24% reduction in physician understanding.