Physical Examination in the Evaluation of Dementia.

Dementia is a common disease worldwide and is largely underdiagnosed. A timely diagnosis of dementia is beneficial for both the patient and family for many reasons, and exclusion and treatment of other mimics of dementia are crucial to avoid long-term consequences. Making a diagnosis of dementia requires attention to subtle cues from both patients and other informants, as often patients and family members will not notice early signs and symptoms. Although universal screening is not recommended by the USPSTF, screening in high-risk populations is recommended by many organizations. Screening with the Mini-Cog and AD8 combined is a highly sensitive way to identify patients with dementia, and confirmation testing can be performed with the MoCA or MMSE. Specific subtypes of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, Lewy body dementia, frontotemporal dementia, and others, sometimes can be differentiated by unique physical examination findings. Timely referral to dementia specialists is useful in the management of this group of diseases. However, as the aging population grows and access to specialists is often limited, it is important for all physicians to understand how to make a diagnosis of dementia.

Perception of Medical Student Mistreatment: Does Specialty Matter?

PURPOSE: Medical student mistreatment is pervasive, yet whether all physicians have a shared understanding of the problem is unclear. The authors presented professionally designed trigger videos to physicians from 6 different specialties to determine if they perceive mistreatment and its severity similarly. METHOD: From October 2016 to August 2018, resident and attending physicians from 10 U.S. medical schools viewed 5 trigger videos showing behaviors that could be perceived as mistreatment. They completed a survey exploring their perceptions. The authors compared perceptions of mistreatment across specialties and, for each scenario, evaluated the relationship between specialty and perception of mistreatment. RESULTS: Six-hundred fifty resident and attending physicians participated. There were statistically significant differences in perception of mistreatment across specialties for 3 of the 5 scenarios: aggressive questioning (range, 74.1%-91.2%), negative feedback (range, 25.4%-63.7%), and assignment of inappropriate tasks (range, 5.5%-25.5%) (P ≤ .001, for all). After adjusting for gender, race, professional role, and prior mistreatment, physicians in surgery viewed 3 scenarios (aggressive questioning, negative feedback, and inappropriate tasks) as less likely to represent mistreatment compared with internal medicine physicians. Physicians from obstetrics-gynecology and "other" specialties perceived less mistreatment in 2 scenarios (aggressive questioning and negative feedback), while family physicians perceived more mistreatment in 1 scenario (negative feedback) compared with internal medicine physicians. The mean severity of perceived mistreatment on a 1 to 7 scale (7 most serious) also varied statistically significantly across the specialties for 3 scenarios: aggressive questioning (range, 4.4-5.4; P < .001), ethnic insensitivity (range, 5.1-6.1; P = .001), and sexual harassment (range, 5.5-6.3; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Specialty was associated with differences in the perception of mistreatment and rating of its severity. Further investigation is needed to understand why these perceptions of mistreatment vary among specialties and how to address these differences.

An Entrustable Professional Activity (EPA)-Based Framework to Prepare Fourth-Year Medical Students for Internal Medicine Careers.

The purpose of the fourth year of medical school remains controversial. Competing demands during this transitional phase cause confusion for students and educators. In 2014, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) released 13 Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency (CEPAERs). A committee comprising members of the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine and the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine applied these principles to preparing students for internal medicine residencies. The authors propose a curricular framework based on five CEPAERs that were felt to be most relevant to residency preparation, informed by prior stakeholder surveys. The critical areas outlined include entering orders, forming and answering clinical questions, conducting patient care handovers, collaborating interprofessionally, and recognizing patients requiring urgent care and initiating that care. For each CEPAER, the authors offer suggestions about instruction and assessment of competency. The fourth year of medical school can be rewarding for students, while adequately preparing them to begin residency, by addressing important elements defined in the core entrustable activities. Thus prepared, new residents can function safely and competently in supervised postgraduate settings.

Important Skills for Internship and the Fourth-Year Medical School Courses to Acquire Them: A National Survey of Internal Medicine Residents.

PURPOSE: To obtain feedback from internal medicine residents, a key stakeholder group, regarding both the skills needed for internship and the fourth-year medical school courses that prepared them for residency. This feedback could inform fourth-year curriculum redesign efforts. METHOD: All internal medicine residents taking the 2013-2014 Internal Medicine In-Training Examination were asked to rank the importance of learning 10 predefined skills prior to internship and to use a dropdown menu of 11 common fourth-year courses to rank the 3 most helpful in preparing for internship. The predefined skills were chosen based on a review of the literature, a national subinternship curriculum, and expert consensus. Chi-square statistics were used to test for differences in responses between training levels. RESULTS: Of the 24,820 internal medicine residents who completed the exam, 20,484 (83%) completed the survey, had complete identification numbers, and consented to have their responses used for research. The three skills most frequently rated as very important were identifying when to seek additional help and expertise, prioritizing clinical tasks and managing time efficiently, and communicating with other providers around care transitions. The subinternship/acting internship was most often selected as being the most helpful course in preparing for internship. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate which skills and fourth-year medical school courses internal medicine residents found most helpful in preparing for internship and confirm the findings of prior studies highlighting the perceived value of subinternships. Internal medicine residents and medical educators agree on the skills students should learn prior to internship.

How Residents Develop Trust in Interns: A Multi-Institutional Mixed-Methods Study.

PURPOSE: Although residents trust interns to provide patient care, little is known about how trust forms. METHOD: Using a multi-institutional mixed-methods study design, the authors interviewed (March-September 2014) internal medicine (IM) residents in their second or third postgraduate year at a single institution to address how they develop trust in interns. Transcript analysis using grounded theory yielded a model for resident trust. Authors tested (January-March 2015) the model with residents from five IM programs using a two-section quantitative survey (38 items; 31 rated 0 = not at all to 100 = very much; 7 rated 0 = strongly disagree to 100 = strongly agree) to identify influences on how residents form trust. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis of 29 interviews yielded 14 themes within five previously identified factors of trust (resident, intern, relationship, task, and context). Of 478 residents, 376 (78.7%) completed the survey. Factor analysis yielded 11 factors that influence trust. Respondents rated interns' characteristics (reliability, competence, and propensity to make errors) highest when indicating importance to trust (respective means 86.3 [standard deviation = 9.7], 76.4 [12.9], and 75.8 [20.0]). They also rated contextual factors highly as influencing trust (access to an electronic medical record, duty hours, and patient characteristics; respective means 79.8 [15.3], 73.1 [14.4], and 71.9 [20.0]). CONCLUSIONS: Residents form trust based on primarily intern- and context-specific factors. Residents appear to consider trust in a way that prioritizes interns' execution of essential patient care tasks safely within the complexities and constraints of the hospital environment.

How we developed and piloted an electronic key features examination for the internal medicine clerkship based on a US national curriculum.

BACKGROUND: Key features examinations (KFEs) have been used to assess clinical decision making in medical education, yet there are no reports of an online KFE-based on a national curriculum for the internal medicine clerkship. What we did: The authors developed and pilot tested an electronic KFE based on the US Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine core curriculum. Teams, with expert oversight and peer review, developed key features (KFs) and cases. EVALUATION: The exam was pilot tested at eight medical schools with 162 third and fourth year medical students, of whom 96 (59.3%) responded to a survey. While most students reported that the exam was more difficult than a multiple choice question exam, 61 (83.3%) students agreed that it reflected problems seen in clinical practice and 51 (69.9%) students reported that it more accurately assessed the ability to make clinical decisions. CONCLUSIONS: The development of an electronic KFs exam is a time-intensive process. A team approach offers built-in peer review and accountability. Students, although not familiar with this format in the US, recognized it as authentically assessing clinical decision-making for problems commonly seen in the clerkship.

Postinterview communication between military residency applicants and training programs.

PURPOSE: Each year military medical students participate in a separate, military match culminating with the Joint Services Graduate Medical Education Selection Board (JSGMESB). Prior studies have explored postinterview communication that occurs during the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP), but not during the JSGMESB. We examined the frequency and nature of communication during the JSGMESB and compared it with the NRMP. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey study of senior students conducted at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU) and seven civilian U.S. medical schools during March to May 2010. Respondents answered questions regarding communication with residency programs during the match. RESULTS: Significantly fewer USU respondents communicated with programs compared with the civilian cohort (54.1% vs. 86.4%, p < 0.01). Specific inquiries regarding rank order were more commonly experienced by USU respondents compared with civilians (17.5% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.02). USU respondents found postinterview communication both helpful (41.3%) and stressful (41.3%). 11.1% of USU respondents indicated that they moved a program higher on their final rank lists because of further communication with these programs. CONCLUSIONS: Postinterview communication during the JSGMESB process is less common and less stressful than that reported in the NRMP. USU respondents are more likely to be asked directly about their rank list and occasionally do change their lists. Uniform guidance mirroring the NRMP's dealing with direct inquiries about rank lists could potentially improve the process.

The prevalence and nature of postinterview communications between residency programs and applicants during the match.

PURPOSE: To examine the frequency and nature of postinterview communications between programs and applicants during the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Main Residency Match. METHOD: The authors surveyed senior medical students at seven U.S. medical schools about postinterview communications with residency programs during the 2010 Match and analyzed the data. RESULTS: The response rate was 68.2% (564/827). Among respondents, 86.4% reported communicating with residency programs. Most (59.9%) reported telling more than one program they would rank it highly; 1.1% reported telling more than one they would rank it first. Students reported that programs told them they would be "ranked to match" (34.6%), be "ranked highly" (52.8%), or "fit well" (76.2%). Almost one-fifth (18.6 %) reported feeling assured by a program that they would match there but did not despite ranking that program first; 23.4% reported altering their rank order list based on communications with programs. In multivariate analysis, applicants to more competitive specialties were less likely to report being told they would be "ranked to match" (relative risk [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.99). Applicants were more likely to report being told that they would be "ranked to match" if they received honors in the specialty clerkship (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.10-1.77) or were members of Alpha Omega Alpha (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.37-2.17). CONCLUSIONS: Reports of nonbinding communications with programs were frequent. Students should be advised to interpret any comments made by programs cautiously. Reported violations of the NRMP's Match Participation Agreement were uncommon.

Almost internists: analysis of students who considered internal medicine but chose other fields.

PURPOSE: Medical students' career choices affect health care. To understand how to increase the number of students who choose careers in internal medicine (IM), students who seriously considered IM but chose another field ("Switchers") and those who rejected IM ("Never Considered") were compared with those who chose IM ("Choosers"). METHOD: Fourth-year medical students from 11 U.S. institutions were surveyed about demographics, medical school educational experiences, and aspects of the specialty of IM. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression models examined associations between student characteristics and classification as Switchers, Choosers, and Never Considered. RESULTS: A total of 1,177 students completed the survey (82% response rate). There were 274 (23%) Choosers, 398 (34%) Switchers, and 499 (43%) Never Considered. The authors' models explained over 80% of variance in these three career choice classification groups. For most responses, an increasingly favorable gradient from Never Considered to Choosers was observed. Multivariate analysis revealed six items that were associated with higher probability of choosing IM: types of patients internists see, timing of career decision, interest groups, intellectual challenge, satisfaction among internists, and the core IM clerkship. CONCLUSIONS: Several potentially modifiable educational experiences and aspects of IM distinguished Switchers from the other two groups. The percentage of variance explained by group suggests that these findings identify important underpinnings of career decisions. These items also suggest ways that educational experiences and aspects of the specialty could be redesigned by academicians and policy makers to improve the attractiveness of IM careers.

Internal medicine clerkship characteristics associated with enhanced student examination performance.

PURPOSE: To determine which internal medicine (IM) clerkship characteristics are associated with better student examination performance. METHOD: The authors collected data from 17 U.S. medical schools (1,817 students) regarding characteristics of their IM clerkships, including structural characteristics, pedagogical approaches, patient contact, and clinical teacher characteristics. Outcomes of interest were postclerkship National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) subject examination score, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) 2 score, and change in score from USMLE 1 to 2. To examine how associations of various clerkship characteristics and examination performance may differ for students of different prior achievement, the authors categorized students into those who scored in the top (1/4) of the cohort on USMLE 1 and the bottom (1/4). The authors conducted analyses at both the school and the individual student levels. RESULTS: In school-level analyses (using a reduced four-variable model), independent variables associated with higher NBME subject examination score were more small-group hours/week and use of community-based preceptors. Greater score increase from USMLE 1 to 2 was associated with students caring for more patients/day. Several variables were associated with enhanced student examination performance at the student level. The most consistent finding was that more patients cared for per day was associated with higher examination performance. More structured learning activities were associated with higher examination scores for students with lower baseline USMLE 1 achievement. CONCLUSION: Certain clerkship characteristics are associated with better student examination performance, the most salient being caring for more patients per day.

Between two worlds: a multi-institutional qualitative analysis of students' reflections on joining the medical profession.

BACKGROUND: Recent changes in healthcare system and training mandates have altered the clinical learning environment. We incorporated reflective writing into Internal Medicine clerkships (IMcs) in multiple institutions so students could consider the impact of clerkship experiences on their personal and professional development. We analyzed student reflections to inform curricula and support learning. METHODS: We qualitatively analyzed the reflections of students at 3 US medical schools during IMcs (N = 292) to identify themes, tone, and reflective quality using an iterative approach. Chi-square tests assessed differences between these factors and across institutions. FINDINGS: Students openly described powerful experiences. Major themes focused on 4 categories: personal issues (PI), professional development (PD), relational issues (RI), and medical care (MC). Each major theme was represented at each institution, although with significant variability between institutions in many of the subcategories including student role (PI), development-as-a-physician (PD), professionalism (PD) (p < 0.001). Students used positive tones to describe student role, development-as-a-physician and physician-patient relationship (PD) (p < 0.01-0.001), and negative tones for quality and safety (MC) (p < 0.05). Only 4% of writings coded as professionalism had a positive tone. Students employed a "reporting" voice in writing about clinical problem-solving, healthcare systems, and quality/safety (MC). DISCUSSION: Reflection is considered important to professional development. Our analysis suggests that students at 3 institutions reflect on similar experiences. Theme variability across institutions implies curricula should be tailored to local culture. Reflective quality analysis suggests students are better equipped to reflect on certain experiences over others, which may impact learning. Student reflections can function as a mirror for our organizations, offer institutional feedback for support and improvement, and inform curricula for learners and faculty.

Do attending physicians, nurses, residents, and medical students agree on what constitutes medical student abuse?

BACKGROUND: Whether attending physicians, residents, nurses, and medical students agree on what constitutes medical student abuse, its severity, or influencing factors is unknown. METHOD: We surveyed 237 internal medicine attending physicians, residents, medical students, and nurses at 13 medical schools after viewing five vignettes depicting potentially abusive behaviors. RESULTS: The majority of each group felt the belittlement, ethnic insensitivity, and sexual harassment scenarios represented abuse but that excluding a student from participating in a procedure did not. Only a majority of attending physicians considered the negative feedback scenario as abuse. Medical students rated abuse severity significantly lower than other groups in the belittlement scenario (p<.05). Respondents who felt abused as students were more likely to rate behaviors as abusive (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The groups generally agree on what constitutes abuse, but attending physicians and those abused as students may perceive more behaviors as abusive.