Using a Consensus-Driven Approach to Incorporate Holistic Review Into an Internal Medicine Residency Program.

Background: Despite growing interest in incorporating holistic review within residency admissions, implementation by residency programs remains challenging. Objective: To incorporate holistic review into the internal medicine residency program at the University of Wisconsin and to report initial feasibility and acceptability data. Methods: During the 2020-2021 application cycle, residency stakeholders performed a consensus-driven process to identify highly valued applicant attributes. We used a holistic review process to identify the presence of these attributes among applicants and updated our rank list algorithm to incorporate these attributes. We modified our interview screening criteria and rank list algorithm to de-emphasize other metrics. We surveyed stakeholders to assess time required for this process and compared our final rank list to what it would have been using our prior system. Results: The final list of 10 prioritized applicant attributes included extraordinary leadership, community service, and grit, among others. Among 25 matched residents, 8 (32%) were recognized to have exceptional achievement within one of these 10 attributes. Four members of the incoming intern class (16%) would have been in a rank position lower than our historical matched resident cutoff had they not received additional points for these attributes. Faculty reported that holistic review of applications took an additional 3.8 minutes on average. It was felt that current application materials limit the ability to implement a fully holistic review. Conclusions: The addition of holistic review to our residency admissions process was achieved using a consensus-driven approach and showed favorable feasibility and acceptability data.

The Association Between Remote Work During the First Wave of the Pandemic and Faculty Perceptions of Their Productivity and Career Trajectory: A Cross Sectional Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Early in the pandemic, studies documented that there are gendered differences in many factors related to working during the pandemic, especially for caregivers. This study aimed to focus on the effects of remote work, rather than the pandemic in general, on perceptions of productivity and career trajectory in research and education faculty at an academic health center. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and distributed to all faculty in the Department of Medicine. We obtained demographic information and asked respondents to report the effect that remote work had on their research or teaching productivity. Those who reported a decrease in productivity were asked to choose a degree of impact. We also asked about the level of concern for the effect remote work would have on their career trajectory in research and teaching and about the impact of remote work on academic wellness. RESULTS: We received responses from 51.4% of 479 faculty. A little less than half were females, and most were subspecialists. More than half (60.6%) were responsible for providing care to children, parents, or others. Nearly one-quarter of respondents (22.8%) reported a negative effect of remote work on teaching productivity, which was more pronounced in senior faculty versus junior faculty (28.6% vs 16.5%, P = 0.03). Few faculty (7.4%) were concerned about their career trajectory in teaching; however, those who provided care at home were significantly more likely to be concerned (10.7% vs 2.1%, P = 0.01). Over half of respondents (56.6%) reported a negative effect of remote work on research productivity; this was significantly higher for tenure faculty than clinician educators (71.9% vs 50.7%, P = 0.01). Almost half of respondents (39.6%) were concerned about their career trajectory in research, and this concern was significantly higher in specialists than in generalists (42.9% vs 15.8%, P = 0.02) and in clinician educators versus clinicians (39.7% vs 0.0%, P = 0.007). A small number of faculty (11.5%) reported a negative impact of remote work on their academic wellness; this impact was higher in specialists than in generalists (13.2% vs 3.7%, P = 0.05). There were no significant differences in any areas of concern for males versus females or in those with or without leadership roles. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center study during the first wave of the pandemic, faculty perceived reduced productivity in teaching, research, and academic wellness. Our study found that remote work concerns were overall more evenly distributed across gender and those responsible for caregiving than had been reported previously; however, caregivers were more concerned about their career trajectory in teaching than noncaregivers. The lack of significant differences may have been due to several factors: remote work allowed flexibility when caregiving arrangements were disrupted; remote work was required of all faculty, mitigating concerns that caregivers were singled out; and institutional support offset some of the challenges. Further studies are needed to determine whether social or operational interventions in academic health centers can reduce the negative perception of remote working on academic productivity.

The Impact of Internal Medicine Clerkship Characteristics and NBME Subject Exams on USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge Exam Performance.

BACKGROUND: Residency program directors will likely emphasize the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 2 clinical knowledge (CK) exam more during residency application given the recent USMLE Step 1 transition to pass/fail scoring. We examined how internal medicine clerkship characteristics and NBME subject exam scores affect USMLE Step 2 CK performance. DESIGN: The authors used univariable and multivariable generalized estimating equations to determine associations between Step 2 CK performance and internal medicine clerkship characteristics and NBME subject exams. The sample had 21,280 examinees' first Step 2 CK scores for analysis. RESULTS: On multivariable analysis, Step 1 performance (standardized ß = 0.45, p < .001) and NBME medicine subject exam performance (standardized ß = 0.40, p < .001) accounted for approximately 60% of the variance in Step 2 CK performance. Students who completed the internal medicine clerkship last in the academic year scored lower on Step 2 CK (Mdiff = -3.17 p < .001). Students who had a criterion score for passing the NBME medicine subject exam scored higher on Step 2 CK (Mdiff = 1.10, p = .03). There was no association between Step 2 CK performance and other internal medicine clerkship characteristics (all p > 0.05) nor with the total NBME subject exams completed (ß=0.05, p = .78). CONCLUSION: Despite similarities between NBME subject exams and Step 2 CK, the authors did not identify improved Step 2 CK performance for students who had more NBME subject exams. The lack of association of Step 2 CK performance with many internal medicine clerkship characteristics and more NBME subject exams has implications for future clerkship structure and summative assessment. The improved Step 2 CK performance in students that completed their internal medicine clerkship earlier warrants further study given the anticipated increase in emphasis on Step 2 CK.

First, do no harm: impact of the transition to an integrated curriculum on medical knowledge acquisition of the transitional cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Many medical schools are moving toward integrated curricula in response to the 2010 Carnegie report. However, there is often apprehension that student performance on standard assessment metrics of medical knowledge acquisition could suffer during the transition period. Therefore, we sought to analyze the impact of curriculum redesign on the medical knowledge acquisition of the transitional cohort, as measured by NBME subject exam scores. METHODS: The University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Legacy curriculum followed a standard 2 + 2 medical school educational model, including traditional, department-based, third-year clinical clerkships. In the new ForWard curriculum, students enter clinical rotations one semester earlier, and those core clinical experiences are organized within four integrated blocks combining traditional clerkship specialties. This retrospective program evaluation compares NBME subject exam scores between the final cohort of Legacy third-year students (2016-17) and first cohort of ForWard students (2018) for the Adult Ambulatory Medicine, Medicine, Neurology, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, Psychiatry, and Surgery exams. RESULTS: NBME subject exam mean scores ranged from 75.5-79.4 for the Legacy cohort and 74.9-78.7 for the ForWard cohort, with no statistically significant differences in scores identified for each individual exam analyzed. Results remained constant when controlled for student demographic variables. DISCUSSION: Faculty and students may worry about impacts to the transitional cohort during curriculum redesign, however our results suggest no substantive negative effects to acquisition of medical knowledge during transition to an integrated curriculum. Further monitoring is necessary to examine whether medical knowledge acquisition remains stable or changes after the integrated curriculum is established.

Beyond "Read More": An Intervention to Improve Faculty Written Feedback to Learners.

BACKGROUND: High-quality feedback is necessary for learners' development. It is most effective when focused on behavior and should also provide learners with specific next steps and desired outcomes. Many faculty struggle to provide this high-quality feedback. OBJECTIVE: To improve the quality of written feedback by faculty in a department of medicine, we conducted a 1-hour session using a novel framework based on education literature, individual review of previously written feedback, and deliberate practice in writing comments. METHODS: Sessions were conducted between August 2015 and June 2018. Participants were faculty members who teach medical students, residents, and/or fellows. To measure the effects of our intervention, we surveyed participants and used an a priori coding scheme to determine how feedback comments changed after the session. RESULTS: Faculty from 7 divisions participated (n = 157). We surveyed 139 participants postsession and 55 (40%) responded. Fifty-three participants (96%) reported learning new information. To more thoroughly assess behavioral changes, we analyzed 5976 feedback comments for students, residents, and fellows written by 22 randomly selected participants before the session and compared these to 5653 comments written by the same participants 1 to 12 months postsession. Analysis demonstrated improved feedback content; comments providing nonspecific next steps decreased, and comments providing specific next steps, reasons why, and outcomes increased. CONCLUSIONS: Combining the learning of a simple feedback framework with an immediate review of written comments that individual faculty members previously provided learners led to measured improvement in written comments.

Acute Kawasaki disease: not just for kids.

Kawasaki Disease is a small-to-medium-vessel vasculitis that preferentially affects children. Kawasaki Disease can occur in adults, but the presentation may differ from that observed in children. Typical findings in both adults and children include fever, conjunctivitis, pharyngitis, and skin erythema progressing to a desquamating rash on the palms and soles. Adults more frequently present with cervical adenopathy (93% of adults vs. 15% of children), hepatitis (65% vs. 10%), and arthralgia (61% vs. 24-38%). In contrast, adults are less frequently affected by meningitis (10% vs. 34%), thrombocytosis (55% vs. 100%), and coronary artery aneurysms (5% vs. 18-25%). We report a case of acute Kawasaki Disease in a 24-year-old man who presented with rash, fever, and arthritis. He was successfully treated with high-dose aspirin and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Our case highlights the importance of considering Kawasaki Disease in adults presenting with symptoms commonly encountered in a general medical practice.

Evidence-based medicine: answering questions of diagnosis.

Using medical evidence to effectively guide medical practice is an important skill for all physicians to learn. The purpose of this article is to understand how to ask and evaluate questions of diagnosis, and then apply this knowledge to the new diagnostic test of CT colonography to demonstrate its applicability. Sackett and colleagues have developed a step-wise approach to answering questions of diagnosis: Step1: Define a clinical question and its four components: Patient, intervention, comparison and outcome. Step 2: Find the evidence that will help answer the question. PubMed Clinical Queries is an efficient database to accomplish this step. Step 3: Assess whether this evidence is valid and important. A quick review of the methods and results section will help to answer these two questions. Step 4: Apply the evidence to the patient. This step includes: assessing whether the test can be used; determining if it will help the patient; finding whether the study patients are similar to the patient in question; determining a pretest probability; and deciding if the test will change one's management of the patient. A relatively new diagnostic test, CT colonography, is explored as a scenario in which the steps presented by Sackett et al.1 can be helpful. A patient who is interested in completing a CT colonography instead of a colonoscopy is the basis of the discussion. Because a CT colonography does not detect polyps of less than 10 mm accurately, many patient are not likely to prefer this test over a colonoscopy. Evidence-based medicine is an effective strategy for finding, evaluating, and critically appraising diagnostic tests, treatment and application. This skill will help physicians interpret and explain the medical information patients read or hear about.

Rhabdomyolysis from the combination of a statin and gemfibrozil: an uncommon but serious adverse reaction.

We report a patient with renal insufficiency who developed rhabdomyolysis 1 month after initiating cerivastatin and gemfibrozil for hyperlipidemia. Myopathy caused by HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) alone is rare, but occurs more frequently when a statin is used with gemfibrozil, a medication that likely has a direct toxic effect on muscles. Predisposing factors to the development of myopathy from the combination include use of medications affecting statin metabolism, higher doses of statins, renal insufficiency, diuretics, and hypothyroidism. It has been proposed that alternate-day therapy with a statin and fibrate, spacing of doses in a single day, or use of lower doses of statins may prevent the development of myopathy. Currently, no predictable method to determine who is at risk for myopathy exists, nor is there a reliable screening test. Therefore, patients should be advised to watch for generalized muscle pain or weakness, and if it occurs, stop medications and report symptoms immediately.

Can specialists and generalists teach clinical skills to second-year medical students with equal effectiveness?

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of specialists and generalists as small-group leaders teaching basic physical examination skills to preclinical medical students. METHOD: Specialists and generalists were randomly assigned to teach physical examination skills to 69 groups of second-year students (n = 288). At the conclusion of the course, the specialist- and generalist-led groups were compared using three measures: students' scores on an objective structured clinical exam (OSCE), students' evaluations of their small-group leaders, and leaders' self-evaluations of confidence in teaching. RESULTS: OSCE scores did not differ between students taught by specialists and generalists (93.5% and 93.8% respectively, p = NS). Students' evaluations of their leaders were similar for nine characteristics rated on a seven-point scale (7 = strongly agree/outstanding; range of results for specialists: 6.20-6.62, for generalists 6.34-6.75, p = NS). Leaders expressed similar levels of confidence (on a seven-point scale; 7 = very confident) in their abilities to teach the neurologic exam (specialists 5.52, generalists 6.19, mean effect size difference 0.44, p = NS) and complete history and physical exam (6.03 and 6.53, mean effect size difference 0.43, p = NS). Specialists were significantly less confident in teaching the cardiovascular exam (5.80 and 6.50, mean effect size difference 0.51, p <.05) and pulmonary exam (5.56 and 6.60, mean effect size difference, 0.80, p <.01). CONCLUSIONS: Specialists and generalists can teach preclinical medical students with equal effectiveness as rated by the students and the students' scores on the OSCE examination, but specialists do not rate themselves as confident as do generalists to teach some skills.