Group concept mapping for health professions education scholarship.

While explicit conceptual models help to inform research, they are left out of much of the health professions education (HPE) literature. One reason may be the limited understanding about how to develop conceptual models with intention and rigor. Group concept mapping (GCM) is a mixed methods conceptualization approach that has been used to develop frameworks for planning and evaluation, but GCM has not been common in HPE. The purpose of this article is to describe GCM in order to make it more accessible for HPE scholars. We recount the origins and evolution of GCM and summarize its core features: GCM can combine multiple stakeholder perspectives in a systematic and inclusive manner to generate explicit conceptual models. Based on the literature and prior experience using GCM, we detail seven steps in GCM: (1) brainstorming ideas to a specific "focus prompt," (2) preparing ideas by removing duplicates and editing for consistency, (3) sorting ideas according to conceptual similarity, (4) generating the point map through quantitative analysis, (5) interpreting cluster map options, (6) summarizing the final concept map, and (7) reporting and using the map. We provide illustrative examples from HPE studies and compare GCM to other conceptualization methods. GCM has great potential to add to the myriad of methodologies open to HPE researchers. Its alignment with principles of diversity and inclusivity, as well as the need to be systematic in applying theoretical and conceptual frameworks to practice, make it a method well suited for the complexities of contemporary HPE scholarship.

Blind spots in medical education - International perspectives.

BACKGROUND: All individuals and groups have blind spots that can create problems if unaddressed. The goal of this study was to examine blind spots in medical education from international perspectives. METHODS: From December 2022 to March 2023, we distributed an electronic survey through international networks of medical students, postgraduate trainees, and medical educators. Respondents named blind spots affecting their medical education system and then rated nine blind spot domains from a study of U.S. medical education along five-point Likert-type scales (1 = much less attention needed; 5 = much more attention needed). We tested for differences between blind spot ratings by respondent groups. We also analyzed the blind spots that respondents identified to determine those not previously described and performed content analysis on open-ended responses about blind spot domains. RESULTS: There were 356 respondents from 88 countries, including 127 (44%) educators, 80 (28%) medical students, and 33 (11%) postgraduate trainees. At least 80% of respondents rated each blind spot domain as needing 'more' or 'much more' attention; the highest was 88% for 'Patient perspectives and voices that are not heard, valued, or understood.' In analyses by gender, role in medical education, World Bank country income level, and region, a mean difference of 0.5 was seen in only five of the possible 279 statistical comparisons. Of 885 blind spots documented, new blind spot areas related to issues that crossed national boundaries (e.g. international standards) and the sufficiency of resources to support medical education. Comments about the nine blind spot domains illustrated that cultural, health system, and governmental elements influenced how blind spots are manifested across different settings. DISCUSSION: There may be general agreement throughout the world about blind spots in medical education that deserve more attention. This could establish a basis for coordinated international effort to allocate resources and tailor interventions that advance medical education.

Seeing with greater clarity: Stakeholder ratings of blind spots in U.S. medical education.

BACKGROUND: Although medical education is affected by numerous blind spots, there is limited evidence to determine which blind spots to prioritize. METHODS: In summer 2022, we surveyed stakeholders from U.S. medical education who had identified 9 domains and 72 subdomains of blind spots. Respondents used 4-point Likert-type scales to rate the extent and magnitude of problems caused for each domain and subdomain. Respondents also provided comments for which we did content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 23/27 (85%) stakeholders responded. The majority of respondents rated each blind spot domain as moderate-major in both extent and problems they cause. Patient perspectives and voices that are not heard, valued, or understood was the domain with the most stakeholders rating extent (n = 20, 87%) and problems caused (n = 23, 100%) as moderate or major. Admitting and selecting learners likely to practice in settings of highest need was the subdomain with the most stakeholders rating extent (n = 21, 91%) and problems caused (n = 22, 96%) as moderate or major. Respondents' comments suggested blind spots may depend on context and persist because of hierarchies and tradition. DISCUSSION: We found blind spots differed in relative importance. These data may inform further research and direct interventions to improve medical education.

Exploring Clinical Lessons Learned by Experienced Hospitalists from Diagnostic Errors and Successes.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors cause significant patient harm. The clinician's ultimate goal is to achieve diagnostic excellence in order to serve patients safely. This can be accomplished by learning from both errors and successes in patient care. However, the extent to which clinicians grow and navigate diagnostic errors and successes in patient care is poorly understood. Clinically experienced hospitalists, who have cared for numerous acutely ill patients, should have great insights from their successes and mistakes to inform others striving for excellence in patient care. OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize clinical lessons learned by experienced hospitalists from diagnostic errors and successes. DESIGN: A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect qualitative data from hospitalists at five independently administered hospitals in the Mid-Atlantic area from February to June 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 12 academic and 12 community-based hospitalists with ≥ 5 years of clinical experience. APPROACH: A constructivist qualitative approach was used and "reflexive thematic analysis" of interview transcripts was conducted to identify themes and patterns of meaning across the dataset. RESULTS: Five themes were generated from the data based on clinical lessons learned by hospitalists from diagnostic errors and successes. The ideas included appreciating excellence in clinical reasoning as a core skill, connecting with patients and other members of the health care team to be able to tap into their insights, reflecting on the diagnostic process, committing to growth, and prioritizing self-care. CONCLUSIONS: The study identifies key lessons learned from the errors and successes encountered in patient care by clinically experienced hospitalists. These findings may prove helpful for individuals and groups that are authentically committed to moving along the continuum from diagnostic competence towards excellence.

Assessing clinical reasoning skills following a virtual patient dizziness curriculum.

OBJECTIVES: Dizziness is a common medical symptom that is frequently misdiagnosed. While virtual patient (VP) education has been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy for dizziness as assessed by VPs, trainee performance has not been assessed on human subjects. The study aimed to assess whether internal medicine (IM) interns after training on a VP-based dizziness curriculum using a deliberate practice framework would demonstrate improved clinical reasoning when assessed in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). METHODS: All available interns volunteered and were randomized 2:1 to intervention (VP education) vs. control (standard clinical teaching) groups. This quasi-experimental study was conducted at one academic medical center from January to May 2021. Both groups completed pre-posttest VP case assessments (scored as correct diagnosis across six VP cases) and participated in an OSCE done 6 weeks later. The OSCEs were recorded and assessed using a rubric that was systematically developed and validated. RESULTS: Out of 21 available interns, 20 participated. Between intervention (n=13) and control (n=7), mean pretest VP diagnostic accuracy scores did not differ; the posttest VP scores improved for the intervention group (3.5 [SD 1.3] vs. 1.6 [SD 0.8], p=0.007). On the OSCE, the means scores were higher in the intervention (n=11) compared to control group (n=4) for physical exam (8.4 [SD 4.6] vs. 3.9 [SD 4.0], p=0.003) and total rubric score (43.4 [SD 12.2] vs. 32.6 [SD 11.3], p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The VP-based dizziness curriculum resulted in improved diagnostic accuracy among IM interns with enhanced physical exam skills retained at 6 weeks post-intervention.

Learning from the early careers of master clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Master clinicians are recognized as multidimensional experts in clinical medicine. Studying their formative clinical activities could generate insights to guide medical trainees and early career clinicians. OBJECTIVES: To investigate which early career activities were adopted more commonly by master clinicians than their matched peers and to characterize master clinicians' early career activities across institutions and specialties. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We surveyed master clinicians at seven medical centres about their early career activities. For master clinicians in the Department of Medicine (DOM), we also surveyed matched internist peers. RESULTS: Of 150 master clinician respondents, 65% were internists (DOM); 35% practiced in other specialties. Compared to their internist peers, there was a trend toward internist master clinicians reading more about their patients' conditions (6.0 vs. 4.8 h per week), reading more case reports (4.0 vs. 2.1 per month), engaging in more frequent teaching duties and devoting less time to research. CONCLUSIONS: The early career activities identified in this study can be adopted by clinicians pursuing clinical excellence and promoted by training programs that seek to foster life-long learning.

The selection of chief residents across residency programs at a large academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Chief residents have a unique role in graduate medical education (GME). They not only connect residents with program and hospital leadership, but also advocate for the wellbeing and educational priorities of trainees. Previous studies have focused on describing the characteristics of chief residents (CRs), however little is known about how CRs are selected across GME programs. METHODS: One-on-one semi-structured interviews with all (n = 21) GME program directors at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine were conducted from January to March 2022. Investigators independently coded the transcripts using an inductive approach to categorize meaningful segments of text; this culminated in the identification of explanatory themes. RESULTS: From discussions with 21 program directors, four themes were identified: (1) identifying candidates: timing, recruitment, nominations, as well as desirable attributes and data considered; (2) applications: expression of intent and participation in interviews; (3) selections: voting, discussions leading to consensus, and program director intimately involved in the choice(s); and (4) confidence in processes and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide a deeper understanding of the nuances associated with the selection of CRs. It is hoped that the descriptions of the similarities and differences across GME programs will prompt reflection about what is done at one institution such that all programs can consider what are the best practices to serve their individual goals and needs.

Using Group Concept Mapping to Explore Medical Education's Blind Spots.

PHENOMENON: All individuals and groups have blind spots that can lead to mistakes, perpetuate biases, and limit innovations. The goal of this study was to better understand how blind spots manifest in medical education by seeking them out in the U.S. APPROACH: We conducted group concept mapping (GCM), a research method that involves brainstorming ideas, sorting them according to conceptual similarity, generating a point map that represents consensus among sorters, and interpreting the cluster maps to arrive at a final concept map. Participants in this study were stakeholders from the U.S. medical education system (i.e., learners, educators, administrators, regulators, researchers, and commercial resource producers) and those from the broader U.S. health system (i.e., patients, nurses, public health professionals, and health system administrators). All participants brainstormed ideas to the focus prompt: "To educate physicians who can meet the health needs of patients in the U.S. health system, medical education should become less blind to (or pay more attention to) …" Responses to this prompt were reviewed and synthesized by our study team to prepare them for sorting, which was done by a subset of participants from the medical education system. GCM software combined sorting solutions using a multidimensional scaling analysis to produce a point map and performed cluster analyses to generate cluster solution options. Our study team reviewed and interpreted all cluster solutions from five to 25 clusters to decide upon the final concept map. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven stakeholders shared 298 blind spots during brainstorming. To decrease redundancy, we reduced these to 208 in preparation for sorting. Ten stakeholders independently sorted the blind spots, and the final concept map included 9 domains and 72 subdomains of blind spots that related to (1) admissions processes; (2) teaching practices; (3) assessment and curricular designs; (4) inequities in education and health; (5) professional growth and identity formation; (6) patient perspectives; (7) teamwork and leadership; (8) health systems care models and financial practices; and (9) government and business policies. INSIGHTS: Soliciting perspectives from diverse stakeholders to identify blind spots in medical education uncovered a wide array of issues that deserve more attention. The concept map may also be used to help prioritize resources and direct interventions that can stimulate change and bring medical education into better alignment with the health needs of patients and communities.

Gender differences in bullying among internal medicine residents.

PURPOSE: To describe gender differences in experienced types of bullying, and resulting personal consequences, among internal medicine (IM) residents. METHODS: Participants in this cross-sectional study included 21 212 IM trainees who completed a voluntary survey with their 2016 in-training exam that assessed bullying during residency training. The 2875 (13.6% of) trainees who reported experiencing bullying on a screening question were asked for additional details about types of bullying experienced and resulting personal consequences. RESULTS: Female and male trainees experienced bullying at similar rates (47% versus 53%, P = .08). Gender differences were seen in both the type of bullying experienced and the resulting personal consequences. Female trainees were more likely than their male counterparts to report bullying characterized as verbal (83% versus 77%, P < .001) and sexual (5% versus 2%, P < .001), whereas male trainees were more likely to experience physical (6% versus 4%, P = .03) and "other" bullying types (27% versus 22%, P < .001). Female trainees were more likely to report negative personal consequences than male trainees, and the most common resultant sequela reported was feeling burned out (63% versus 51%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Gender differences exist in both the types and consequences of bullying experienced among this national sample of IM residents. These results should be considered by programs and institutions that are hoping to optimize the culture of their workplace and enhance safety in the learning environment.

Clinical excellence in child and adolescent psychiatry: examples from the published literature.

There has been growing interest in the past century in improving understanding of the development and treatment of psychopathology of children, with increasing government funding of research in the past two decades. However, child and adolescent psychiatry excellence in clinical care has not been well-documented in the existing literature. This article provides examples of clinical excellence in paediatric mental health to supplement existing guidelines for the clinical practice of paediatric psychiatry. A review of the literature identified 204 unique peer-reviewed articles that were then further evaluated for applicability and relevance to the definition of clinical excellence as outlined by the Miller-Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence (MCACE). Cases were then identified and selected for each domain of clinical excellence as they apply to child and adolescent psychiatry and to provide a model for patient care. KeypointsClinical excellence in child and adolescent psychiatry has not previously been defined or extensively documented.The Miller-Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence (MCACE) has developed a systematic method to measuring excellence in clinical care and created a definition of clinical excellence.The MCACE defined the domains of clinical excellence as communication and interpersonal skills, professionalism and humanism, diagnostic acumen, skilful negotiation of the healthcare system, knowledge, scholarly approach to clinical practice, exhibiting a passion for patient care and modelling clinical excellence, and collaborating with investigators to advance science and discovery.There are numerous case examples in the literature that represent mastery in paediatric psychiatry in these areas.Clinicians in paediatric mental health will likely benefit from future research on evidence-based approaches to training and education in these domains of clinical excellence.

Blind spots in medical education: how can we envision new possibilities?

As human beings, we all have blind spots. Most obvious are our visual blind spots, such as where the optic nerve meets the retina and our inability to see behind us. It can be more difficult to acknowledge our other types of blind spots, like unexamined beliefs, assumptions, or biases. While each individual has blind spots, groups can share blind spots that limit change and innovation or even systematically disadvantage certain other groups. In this article, we provide a definition of blind spots in medical education, and offer examples, including unfamiliarity with the evidence and theory informing medical education, lack of evidence supporting well-accepted and influential practices, significant absences in our scholarly literature, and the failure to engage patients in curriculum development and reform. We argue that actively helping each other see blind spots may allow us to avoid pitfalls and take advantage of new opportunities for advancing medical education scholarship and practice. When we expand our collective field of vision, we can also envision more "adjacent possibilities," future states near enough to be considered but not so distant as to be unimaginable. For medical education to attend to its blind spots, there needs to be increased participation among all stakeholders and a commitment to acknowledging blind spots even when that may cause discomfort. Ultimately, the better we can see blind spots and imagine new possibilities, the more we will be able to adapt, innovate, and reform medical education to prepare and sustain a physician workforce that serves society's needs.

An examination of the most expensive adult hospitalizations in America.

BACKGROUND: While no hospitalization is inexpensive, some are extremely costly. Learning from these exceptions is critical. The patients and conditions that ultimately translate into the most exorbitant adult hospitalizations have not been characterized. OBJECTIVE: To analyze and detail characteristics of extreme high-cost adult hospitalizations in the United States using the most recently available Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) data. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The NIS 2018 database was queried for all adult hospitalizations with hospital charges greater than $333,000. Multivariable linear regression was used in the analyses. MEASURES: The main outcome measures were total charges, mortality, length of stay, admitting diagnosis, and procedures. RESULTS: There were 538,121 adults age ≥18 years with total hospital charges ≥$333,333. Among these patients 481,856 (89.5%) survived their hospitalization and 56,265 (10.4%) died. Males, older patients, being insured by Medicare, having more comorbid illness, and those who were transferred from another hospital were significantly more likely to die during the incident hospitalization (all p < 0.01). Patients who died had even more costly hospitalizations with more procedures (mean [SD]: 10.7 [±6.4] versus 7.0 [± 5.9], p < 0.01), and longer lengths of stay after adjustment for confounders (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Hundreds of thousands of adult patients are hospitalized in the US each year at extremely high costs. For both those who survive and the 10% who die, there may be opportunities for reducing the expense. Interventions, such as predictive modeling and systematic goals of care discussions with all patients, deserve further study.

Cerebral palsy and developmental intellectual disability in children younger than 5 years: Findings from the GBD-WHO Rehabilitation Database 2019.

Objective: Children with developmental disabilities are associated with a high risk of poor school enrollment and educational attainment without timely and appropriate support. Epidemiological data on cerebral palsy and associated comorbidities required for policy intervention in global health are lacking. This paper set out to report the best available evidence on the global and regional prevalence of cerebral palsy (CP) and developmental intellectual disability and the associated "years lived with disability" (YLDs) among children under 5 years of age in 2019. Methods: We analyzed the collaborative 2019 Rehabilitation Database of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study and World Health Organization for neurological and mental disorders available for 204 countries and territories. Point prevalence and YLDs with 95% uncertainty intervals (UI) are presented. Results: Globally, 8.1 million (7.1-9.2) or 1.2% of children under 5 years are estimated to have CP with 16.1 million (11.5-21.0) or 2.4% having intellectual disability. Over 98% resided in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). CP and intellectual disability accounted for 6.5% and 4.5% of the aggregate YLDs from all causes of adverse health outcomes respectively. African Region recorded the highest prevalence of CP (1.6%) while South-East Asia Region had the highest prevalence of intellectual disability. The top 10 countries accounted for 57.2% of the global prevalence of CP and 62.0% of the global prevalence of intellectual disability. Conclusion: Based on this Database, CP and intellectual disability are highly prevalent and associated with substantial YLDs among children under 5 years worldwide. Universal early detection and support services are warranted, particularly in LMICs to optimize school readiness for these children toward inclusive education as envisioned by the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.

The Current State of Journal Clubs in Psychiatry Residency Programs: Results from a National Survey of Program Directors.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate journal club prevalence, implementation, and perceived effectiveness among psychiatry residency program directors in order to highlight best practices. METHODS: The authors distributed a 44-item thoughtfully designed and peer-reviewed questionnaire electronically via Qualtrics to 235 accredited U.S. psychiatry residency program directors identified using the American Medical Association database. RESULTS: Eighty-nine programs (38%) responded. Of these, 83 (93%) had a journal club. Journal clubs were mandatory in 80 programs (96%), met biweekly or monthly in 62 programs (75%), and lasted 46-60 min in 66 programs (80%). Twenty-three programs (28%) offered a list of articles to choose from, and 22 programs (27%) provided a critical appraisal tool. Only 7 programs (8%) measured learner outcomes from journal clubs. Respondents believed that promoting lifelong learning and practicing evidence-based psychiatry were the most relevant educational goals of journal club (2.57 and 2.51 on a Likert scale of 0 to 3). Journal club's effectiveness in achieving those goals was believed to be lower (2.16 and 2.09). CONCLUSIONS: Journal clubs are common in U.S. psychiatry residency programs and tend to follow a traditional format. In order to boost journal club's effectiveness in achieving the desired educational goals, more programs might elect to infuse elements known to augment learning.