Developing an Inclusive Scholarship Curriculum for Medical Students.

PROBLEM: As part of a curriculum renewal, in 2020, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis sought to create an integrated curriculum that allows students to explore 4 academic career pathways (advocacy/global health, education, innovation, and research) and engage in scholarship activities-the Inquiry Curriculum. The curriculum needed to focus on foundational scholarship skills that would be applicable to all pathways. This article describes the process used to develop the curriculum learning objectives and lessons learned from initial implementation. APPROACH: The authors used a modified Delphi process to survey faculty experts from the 4 pathways to determine the objectives (March-May 2020). Twenty-four faculty were surveyed about 48 initial objectives created using Glassick's scholarship criteria. After 2 rounds, 28 objectives met consensus. Further oversight committee review and revisions by session leads resulted in 77 unique objectives for 23 sessions in the curriculum that launched in spring 2021. OUTCOMES: Four themes were identified from student feedback: (1) the Inquiry Curriculum framework creates opportunities for students to gain exposure to various approaches to understanding and addressing health care problems, (2) the curriculum targeted higher-level objectives for traditional research content and lower-level objectives for nontraditional content, (3) Glassick's criteria provided a useful structure for students to understand the rationale for and ordering of content, and (4) the curriculum had natural overlap with content often taught elsewhere in the curriculum, including evidence-based medicine, health equity, public and population health, and quality improvement and patient safety. NEXT STEPS: The authors plan to consolidate sessions where there is redundancy, expand other sessions that require more time, and more purposefully discuss prior content when redundancy is intentional. Exploring other potential measures of curricular success, such as student learning outcomes, scholarly productivity, and impact on future scholarship engagement and career paths, is part of ongoing work.

Residency Program Directors' Views on Research Conducted During Medical School: A National Survey.

PURPOSE: With the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 transition to pass/fail in 2022, uncertainty exists regarding how other residency application components, including research conducted during medical school, will inform interview and ranking decisions. The authors explore program director (PD) views on medical student research, the importance of disseminating that work, and the translatable skill set of research participation. METHOD: Surveys were distributed to all U.S. residency PDs and remained open from August to November 2021 to query the importance of research participation in assessing applicants, whether certain types of research were more valued, productivity measures that reflect meaningful research participation, and traits for which research serves as a proxy. The survey also queried whether research would be more important without a numeric Step 1 score and the importance of research vs other application components. RESULTS: A total of 885 responses from 393 institutions were received. Ten PDs indicated that research is not considered when reviewing applicants, leaving 875 responses for analysis. Among 873 PDs (2 nonrespondents), 358 (41.0%) replied that meaningful research participation will be more important in offering interviews. A total of 164 of 304 most competitive specialties (53.9%) reported increased research importance compared with 99 of 282 competitive (35.1%) and 95 of 287 least competitive (33.1%) specialties. PDs reported that meaningful research participation demonstrated intellectual curiosity (545 [62.3%]), critical and analytical thinking skills (482 [55.1%]), and self-directed learning skills (455 [52.0%]). PDs from the most competitive specialties were significantly more likely to indicate that they value basic science research vs PDs from the least competitive specialties. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates how PDs value research in their review of applicants, what they perceive research represents in an applicant, and how these views are shifting as the Step 1 exam transitions to pass/fail.

Workshop, Assessment, and Validity Evidence for Tools Measuring Performance of Knee and Shoulder Arthrocentesis.

Introduction: Musculoskeletal concerns are common, yet residents at our institution lacked arthrocentesis training. We created a workshop to teach residents knee and shoulder arthrocentesis, developed simulated assessment scenarios (SASs) with tools to measure procedural proficiency, and collected validity evidence. Methods: A multidisciplinary group conducted a modified Delphi to define content for the workshop, SASs, and assessment tools. We defined minimum thresholds for competence in knee and shoulder arthrocentesis using the modified borderline-group method. We implemented the workshop and SASs in 2020 and 2021 and analyzed assessment tool scoring for statistical reliability and validity. Our program evaluation included SAS performance, participants' survey responses, and change in the number of arthrocenteses performed in the internal medicine (IM) resident primary care clinic. Results: Sixty-one residents (53 IM, eight physical medicine and rehabilitation [PM&R]) participated. Fifty-two (85%; 46 IM, six PM&R) completed the evaluation survey. We procured data from 48 knee and 65 shoulder SASs for validity evidence. All arthrocentesis SAS performances met the proficiency standard except one resident's shoulder SAS. Validity evidence revealed strong interrater reliability (α = .82 and .77 for knee and shoulder, respectively) and strong relational validity (p < .001 for both procedures). All participants rated workshop quality and usefulness as good or very good. The number of arthrocenteses performed at our institution's primary care clinic increased. Discussion: We created a workshop to teach residents arthrocentesis and assessment tools with strong validity and reliability evidence. The workshop was well regarded by residents, who applied their arthrocentesis skills during patient care.

Inpatient Goals-of-Care Conversations Reduce Intensive Care Unit Transfers in High-Risk Patients.

Despite an aging population and an increase in the prevalence of chronic severe illness, many patients will not have end-of-life care discussions with their outpatient physicians. This very likely contributes to considerable hospital utilization toward the end of life, without any clear benefit. At our medical center, we noticed a very high rate of floor-to-intensive care unit (ICU) transfers for patients with life-limiting illness and poor prognosis. We initiated a quality assessment and improvement project aimed at increasing goals-of-care conversations for high-risk patients early in their hospital stays. Patients were identified using a risk assessment score combined with presence of life-limiting illness and alerting the inpatient attending physician to the patient's severity of illness. Inpatient attending physicians were encouraged to expeditiously initiate and document goals-of-care discussions with their patients and families or to consult palliative care. Patient data were extracted retrospectively from high-risk patients prior to and during the intervention period. Analysis showed a significant increase in overall goals-of-care discussions and a significant reduction in floor-to-ICU transfers during initial admission. There was no change in mortality at 1 year, but there was a trend toward more in-home deaths for those patients who died within the year. Early inpatient goals-of-care conversations may reduce ICU utilization at index hospitalization and may reduce overall health-care utilization near the end of life.