Commentary: Accurate medical student performance evaluations and professionalism assessment: "Yes, we can!".

In this issue, Brenner and colleagues report a correlation between the frequency of negative comments in the "dean's letter" and future problems during a psychiatry residency program. Their study makes an important contribution to the body of literature on factors that predict professionalism-related performance issues during residency and suggests the importance of dependable data that can be used to predict and hopefully intervene early in the training of future physicians across all specialties. As we think about the implications of this study, important issues involving the standardization of medical student performance evaluations (MSPEs) and the assessment of professionalism are raised. Despite the Association of American Medical Colleges' 2002 guidelines for MSPEs, subsequent studies have revealed that considerable inconsistencies among the evaluations still remain. To enhance the accuracy and usefulness of the MSPEs in predicting "problem residents," improved standardization is necessary. Moreover, Brenner's findings call for the development of more vigorous assessment of professionalism in undergraduate medical education, as well as more accurate reporting of these assessments to residency programs. Longitudinal assessment of professionalism with robust tools allows for the identification and possible remediation of students early in their undergraduate training. Insofar as unprofessional behavior in medical school is predictive not only of problems during residency but also of later disciplinary action against the practicing physician by state medical boards, it is the obligation of the medical school to the residency program and to society to identify and report these behaviors.

Using an online forum to encourage reflection about difficult conversations in medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Medical students encounter many challenging communication situations during the clinical clerkships. We created the Difficult Conversations Online Forum (DC Forum) to give students an opportunity to reflect, debrief, and respond to one another about their experiences. METHODS: The DC Forum is a web-based application with structured templates for student posts and responses, along with a mechanism for faculty feedback. It became a required part of the curriculum for third-year medical students in 2003. We content analyzed data collected during the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 academic years (N=315). All open-ended responses were coded by two members of the research team; the few disagreements were resolved via discussion. RESULTS: While posts addressed a wide range of topics, more than one-third (35.6%) of students addressed delivering bad news. Nearly half (49.4%) of the students reported they had talked with someone about their difficult conversation, most frequently a resident physician; the suggestions they received varied in terms of helpfulness. Only a small percentage of students (4.7%) reported accessing other resources. CONCLUSION: The DC Forum provides a template that encourages reflection and dialogue about challenging communication situations. The online design is feasible, and enables a virtual discussion that can be joined by students regardless of their clerkship schedule or clinical site. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A structured approach for reflection and a simple, safe mechanism for feedback are essential components of the learning process regarding difficult conversations. While the DC Forum was created for medical students, the online approach may prove useful across the continuum of medical education.

Defining professionalism from the perspective of patients, physicians, and nurses.

PURPOSE: Although professionalism has always been a core value in medicine, it has received increasingly explicit attention over the past several years. Unfortunately, the terms used to explain this competency have been rather abstract. This study was designed to identify and prioritize behaviorally based signs of medical professionalism that are relevant to patients, physicians, and nurses. METHOD: The qualitative portion of this project began in 2004 with a series of 22 focus groups held to explore behavioral signs of professionalism in medicine. Separate groups were held with patients, inpatient nurses, outpatient nurses, resident physicians, and attending physicians from different specialties, generating a total of 68 behaviorally based items. In 2004-2006, quantitative data were collected through national patient (n = 415) and physician leader (n = 214) surveys and a statewide nurse (n = 237) survey that gauged the importance these groups attach to the behaviors as signs of professionalism and determined whether they are in a position to observe these behaviors in the clinical setting. RESULTS: The surveys of patients, physician leaders, and nurses provided different perspectives on the importance and visibility of behavioral signs of professionalism. Most of the behaviors were deemed very important signs of professionalism by at least 75% of patients, physicians, and/or nurses; far fewer were considered observable in the clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that it is possible and instructive to define professionalism in terms of tangible behaviors. Focusing on behaviors rather than attributes may facilitate discussion, assessment, and modeling of professionalism in both medical education and clinical care.

First-year medical students' assessment of their own communication skills: a video-based, open-ended approach.

OBJECTIVE: Interpersonal and communication skills are a core area of competency for medical students, residents, and practicing physicians. As reflection and self-assessment are essential components of skill-building, we examined the content of medical students' assessments of their own developing communication skills. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2003, a total of 674 first-year medical students completed self-assessments of their communication skills after viewing videotapes of their interaction with simulated patients. Self-assessment forms were open-ended, providing ample space for students to write about the strengths and weaknesses they observed. Completed forms were coded by two members of the research team trained in content analysis. Students identified an average of 5.0 things that went well (range 1-15, S.D.=2.2) and 2.8 areas for improvement (range 1-9, S.D.=1.3). RESULTS: The most frequently observed strengths were: elicited information/covered important topics (54%); made a personal connection/established rapport (51%); was supportive/encouraging/helpful (40%); attended to conversational flow and transitions (34%); ensured patient comfort (32%). The most frequently noted weaknesses involved problems with: eliciting information/covering important topics (35%); paralanguage, particularly in terms of tone, rate, volume, and disfluencies such as "uh", "um" (32%); discussing health risks (26%); attending to conversational flow and transitions (23%); students' own comfort/organization/preparation (20%). CONCLUSION: We observed that a video-based, open-ended approach to self-assessment is feasible, practical, and informative. While the self-assessments covered a broad scope, students clearly attended to tasks and skills relevant to effective communication and relationship building. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Videotaped clinical encounters allow learners to review their own behavior and make specific comments supported by tangible examples. An open-ended approach to self-assessment of communication skills can serve as one important component of a systematic education and evaluation program.

An evidence-based perspective on greetings in medical encounters.

BACKGROUND: Widely used models for teaching and assessing communication skills highlight the importance of greeting patients appropriately, but there is little evidence regarding what constitutes an appropriate greeting. METHODS: To obtain data on patient expectations for greetings, we asked closed-ended questions about preferences for shaking hands, use of patient names, and use of physician names in a computer-assisted telephone survey of adults in the 48 contiguous United States. We also analyzed an existing sample of 123 videotaped new patient visits to characterize patterns of greeting behavior in everyday clinical practice. RESULTS: Most (78.1%) of the 415 survey respondents reported that they want the physician to shake their hand, 50.4% want their first name to be used when physicians greet them, and 56.4% want physicians to introduce themselves using their first and last names; these expectations vary somewhat with patient sex, age, and race. Videotapes revealed that physicians and patients shook hands in 82.9% of visits. In 50.4% of the initial encounters, physicians did not mention the patient's name at all. Physicians tended to use their first and last names when introducing themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should be encouraged to shake hands with patients but remain sensitive to nonverbal cues that might indicate whether patients are open to this behavior. Given the diversity of opinion regarding the use of names, coupled with national patient safety recommendations concerning patient identification, we suggest that physicians initially use patients' first and last names and introduce themselves using their own first and last names.