Stereotype Threat and Gender Bias in Internal Medicine Residency: It is Still Hard to be in Charge.

BACKGROUND: Despite similar numbers of women and men in internal medicine (IM) residency, women face unique challenges. Stereotype threat is hypothesized to contribute to underrepresentation of women in academic leadership, and exploring how it manifests in residency may provide insight into forces that perpetuate gender disparities. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the prevalence of stereotype threat in IM residency and explore experiences contributing to that stereotype threat. DESIGN: We used a mixed methods study design. First, we surveyed IM residents using the Stereotype Vulnerability Scale (SVS) to screen for stereotype threat. Second, we conducted focus groups with women who scored high on the SVS to understand experiences that led to stereotype threat. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to all IM residents at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in September-November 2019. Focus groups were conducted at UCSF in Spring 2020. APPROACH: The survey included an adapted version of the SVS. For focus groups, we developed a focus group guide informed by literature on stereotype threat. We used a thematic approach to data analysis. The mixed methods design enabled us to draw metainferences by integrating the two data sources. KEY RESULTS: Survey response rate was 61% (110/181). Women were significantly more likely than men to have a score indicating stereotype threat vulnerability (77% vs 0%, p < 0.001). Four themes from focus groups characterized women's experiences of gender bias and stereotype threat: gender norm tension, microaggressions and sexual harassment, authority questioned, and support and allyship. CONCLUSIONS: Gender-based stereotype threat is highly prevalent among women IM residents. This phenomenon poses a threat to confidence and ability to execute patient care responsibilities, detracting from well-being and professional development. These findings indicate that, despite robust representation of women in IM training, further attention is needed to address gendered experiences and contributors to women's vulnerability to stereotype threat.

Who should proof my paper?

This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors address the challenges in proofreading a manuscript. Emerging researchers might think that someone in the production team will catch any errors. This may not always be the case. We emphasize the importance of guiding mentees to take the process of preparing a manuscript for submission seriously.

I'd like to use a questionnaire (sub-text: this will be an easy way to get data. Right?).

This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors address the question of using questionnaires in education research, considering the why, when, and how, as well as its potential pitfalls. The goal is to guide supervisors and students who are considering whether to develop and use a questionnaire for research purposes.

Assessing supervisor versus trainee viewpoints of entrustment through cognitive and affective lenses: an artificial intelligence investigation of bias in feedback.

The entrustment framework redirects assessment from considering only trainees' competence to decision-making about their readiness to perform clinical tasks independently. Since trainees and supervisors both contribute to entrustment decisions, we examined the cognitive and affective factors that underly their negotiation of trust, and whether trainee demographic characteristics may bias them. Using a document analysis approach, we adapted large language models (LLMs) to examine feedback dialogs (N = 24,187, each with an associated entrustment rating) between medical student trainees and their clinical supervisors. We compared how trainees and supervisors differentially documented feedback dialogs about similar tasks by identifying qualitative themes and quantitatively assessing their correlation with entrustment ratings. Supervisors' themes predominantly reflected skills related to patient presentations, while trainees' themes were broader-including clinical performance and personal qualities. To examine affect, we trained an LLM to measure feedback sentiment. On average, trainees used more negative language (5.3% lower probability of positive sentiment, p < 0.05) compared to supervisors, while documenting higher entrustment ratings (+ 0.08 on a 1-4 scale, p < 0.05). We also found biases tied to demographic characteristics: trainees' documentation reflected more positive sentiment in the case of male trainees (+ 1.3%, p < 0.05) and of trainees underrepresented in medicine (UIM) (+ 1.3%, p < 0.05). Entrustment ratings did not appear to reflect these biases, neither when documented by trainee nor supervisor. As such, bias appeared to influence the emotive language trainees used to document entrustment more than the degree of entrustment they experienced. Mitigating these biases is nonetheless important because they may affect trainees' assimilation into their roles and formation of trusting relationships.

Should I do a synthesis (i.e. literature review)?

This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors address the question of whether one should conduct a literature review or knowledge synthesis, considering the why, when, and how, as well as its potential pitfalls. The goal is to guide supervisors and students who are considering whether to embark on a literature review in education research.

Recovery Rates of Diagnostic Cardiac Procedural Volume in Oceania 1 Year Into COVID-19: The IAEA Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocol Survey on COVID-19 (INCAPS COVID 2).

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the recovery rates of diagnostic cardiac procedure volumes in the Oceania Region, midway through the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A survey was performed comparing procedure volumes between March 2019 (pre-pandemic), April 2020 (during first wave of COVID-19 pandemic), and April 2021 (1 year into the COVID-19 pandemic). A total of 31 health care facilities within Oceania that perform cardiac diagnostic procedures were surveyed, including a mixture of metropolitan and regional, hospital and outpatient, public and private sites, as well as teaching and non-teaching hospitals. A comparison was made with 549 centres in 96 countries in the rest of the world (RoW) outside of Oceania. The total number and median percentage change in procedure volume were measured between the three timepoints, compared by test type and by facility. RESULTS: A total of 11,902 cardiac diagnostic procedures were performed in Oceania in April 2021 as compared with 11,835 pre-pandemic in March 2019 and 5,986 in April 2020; whereas, in the RoW, 499,079 procedures were performed in April 2021 compared with 497,615 pre-pandemic in March 2019 and 179,014 in April 2020. There was no significant difference in the median recovery rates for total procedure volumes between Oceania (-6%) and the RoW (-3%) (p=0.81). While there was no statistically significant difference in percentage recovery been functional ischaemia testing and anatomical coronary testing in Oceania as compared with the RoW, there was, however, a suggestion of poorer recovery in anatomical coronary testing in Oceania as compared with the RoW (CT coronary angiography -16% in Oceania vs -1% in RoW, and invasive coronary angiography -20% in Oceania vs -9% in RoW). There was no statistically significant difference in recovery rates in procedure volume between metropolitan vs regional (p=0.44), public vs private (p=0.92), hospital vs outpatient (p=0.79), or teaching vs non-teaching centres (p=0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Total cardiology procedure volumes in Oceania normalised 1 year post-pandemic compared to pre-pandemic levels, with no significant difference compared with the RoW and between the different types of health care facilities.

Enhancing robotic efficiency through the eyes of robotic surgeons: sub-analysis of the expertise in perception during robotic surgery (ExPeRtS) study.

BACKGROUND: Robotic technology affords surgeons many novel and useful features, but two stereotypes continue to prevail: robotic surgery is expensive and inefficient. To identify educational opportunities and improve operative efficiency, we analyzed expert commentary on videos of robotic surgery. METHODS: Expert robotic surgeons, identified through high case volumes and contributions to the surgical literature, reviewed eight anonymous video clips portraying key portions of two robotic general surgery procedures. While watching, surgeons commented on what they saw on the screen. All interactions with participants were in person, recorded, transcribed, and subsequently analyzed. Using content analysis, researchers double-coded each transcript applying a consensus developed codebook. RESULTS: Seventeen surgeons participated. The average participant was male (82.4%), 47 (SD = 6.6) years old, had 13.2 (SD = 8.23) years of teaching experience, worked in urban academic hospitals (64.7%) and had performed 643 (SD = 467) robotic operations at the time of interviews. Emphasis on efficiency (or lack thereof) surfaced across three main themes: overall case progression, robotic capabilities, and instrumentation. Experts verbally rewarded purposeful and "ergonomically sound" movements while language reflecting impatience with repetitive and indecisive movements was attributed to presumed inexperience. Efficient robotic capabilities included enhanced visualization, additional robotic arms to improve exposure, and wristed instruments. Finally, experts discussed instrument selection with regards to energy modality, safety features, cost, and versatility. CONCLUSION: This study highlights three areas for improved efficiency: case progression, robotic capabilities, and instrumentation. Development of education materials within these themes could help surgical educators overcome one of robotic technology's persistent challenges.

Who should be an author on this paper?

This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors address the question of who should be listed as an author on a given publication and provide advice as to how to navigate potential tensions in the authorship decision-making process.

My paper has been rejected without review. What do I do now?

This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors address the question of why papers may be desk rejected (rejected without going out for formal peer review) and describe simple steps for authors to optimize their work so it gets past the desk reject stage.

How should I determine author order for this paper?

This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors conclude their short series of articles on academic authorship by addressing the question of how to determine author order, including taking into account power dynamics that may be at play.

Investigating feedback orientation in medical learners.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Feedback processes in health professions education (HPE) are not always successful. While recommendations to improve feedback provision dominate the literature, studying specific learner attributes that impact feedback uptake may also improve feedback processes. Feedback orientation is a concept from management science involving four dimensions of learner attributes and attitudes that impact their feedback uptake: utility, accountability, social awareness, and feedback self-efficacy. Feedback orientation may represent a valuable concept in HPE. We aimed to understand medical learners' feedback orientation at different stages in their development. METHODS: We used the Feedback Orientation Scale, a 20-item survey instrument, for a cross-sectional analysis of feedback orientation in medical students and Internal Medicine residents at one large academic center. We performed descriptive statistics and analysis of variance for data analysis. RESULTS: We found the same factors (dimensions) to feedback orientation in our population as in management science. Overall feedback orientation scores were high and were largely consistent across trainee levels. Utility was the domain that was highest across learners, whereas feedback self-efficacy was lowest. CONCLUSIONS: Feedback orientation represents a useful concept to explore medical learners' attitudes toward feedback's role in their development. The four domains can help guide further nuanced feedback research and application.[Box: see text].

Developing a programmatic approach to faculty development and scholarship using the ASPIRE criteria: AMEE Guide No. 165.

Faculty Development (FD) has become essential in shaping design, delivery and quality assurance of health professions education. The growth of FD worldwide has led to a heightened expectation for quality and organizational integrity in the delivery of FD programmes. To address this, AMEE, An International Association for Health Professions Education, developed quality standards for FD through the development of the AMEE ASPIRE to Excellence criteria. This guide uses the ASPIRE criteria as a framework for health professions educators who wish to establish or expand approaches to FD delivery and scholarship within their institutions.

The process of harmonizing competency-based curricula for medicine and nursing degree programmes: A Multi-institutional and multi-professional experience from Tanzania.

In many low- and middle-income countries, there seems to be a mismatch between graduate skills and healthcare industry requirements due to variability in curricula. With the current increased global demand for competent health profession graduates, harmonizing competency-based curricula (CBC) is necessary to address this mismatch. This paper describes how three health professions training universities in Tanzania and their two long-standing United States partners embarked on developing harmonized CBC for undergraduate medicine and nursing degrees. The main goal of the activity was to develop templates to harmonize curricula that would support graduates to acquire mandatory national Graduate Minimum Essential Competencies (GMEC) irrespective of the institution of their training. The paper describes the processes of engaging multiple institutions, the professions of medicine and nursing and various stakeholders to develop mandatory curricula generic competencies, creating milestones for assessing competencies, training faculty at each of the three partnering institutions in curriculum delivery and assessments, resulting in the adoption of the curricula by the University leadership at each institution. Ultimately the Tanzania Commission for Universities (TCU) a regulatory body required all schools of medicine and nursing in the country to adopt the curricula, thus creating a harmonized national standard for teaching medicine and nursing beginning October 2022.

Exploring how feedback reflects entrustment decisions using artificial intelligence.

CONTEXT: Clinical supervisors make judgements about how much to trust learners with critical activities in patient care. Such decisions mediate trainees' opportunities for learning and competency development and thus are a critical component of education. As educators apply entrustment frameworks to assessment, it is important to determine how narrative feedback reflecting entrustment may also address learners' educational needs. METHODS: In this study, we used artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP) to identify characteristics of feedback tied to supervisors' entrustment decisions during direct observation encounters of clerkship medical students (3328 unique observations). Supervisors conducted observations of students and collaborated with them to complete an entrustment-based assessment in which they documented narrative feedback and assigned an entrustment rating. We trained a deep neural network (DNN) to predict entrustment levels from the narrative data and developed an explainable AI protocol to uncover the latent thematic features the DNN used to make its prediction. RESULTS: We found that entrustment levels were associated with level of detail (specific steps for performing clinical tasks), feedback type (constructive versus reinforcing) and task type (procedural versus cognitive). In justifying both high and low levels of entrustment, supervisors detailed concrete steps that trainees performed (or did not yet perform) competently. CONCLUSIONS: Framing our results in the factors previously identified as influencing entrustment, we find a focus on performance details related to trainees' clinical competency as opposed to nonspecific feedback on trainee qualities. The entrustment framework reflected in feedback appeared to guide specific goal-setting, combined with details necessary to reach those goals. Our NLP methodology can also serve as a starting point for future work on entrustment and feedback as similar assessment datasets accumulate.

This was the first .

In this editorial, two of the Journal's editors reflect on why many authors emphasize in their study being the first one to focus on a given topic. They explore why authors may engage in this behavior and they offer guidance to authors as to how to strengthen the rationale for their work besides 'being first.'

Faculty motivations for leading clinical clerkship electives: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Faculty are motivated to pursue clinician-educator careers out of a sense of purpose, duty, connectedness, satisfaction, and mastery. Yet, many suffer from burnout due to a lack of funding, resources, and competing clinical demands. Reasons for clinician-educator participation in unfunded educational leadership positions are underexplored. This study examined faculty members' reasons for volunteering and remaining as clerkship elective directors, an unfunded leadership position. METHODS: In this qualitative study, the authors conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with clerkship elective directors in March 2021. The authors conducted a thematic analysis of deidentified transcripts using motivation theories as a lens. RESULTS: Directors' motivations to engage in this unfunded educational leadership position stemmed from their existing clinician-educator identity and a sense of purpose and duty. Directors are sustained by the satisfaction derived from witnessing the positive impact they have on learners' career development and skills building, the impact of learners on the clinical environment, as well as personal benefits in the mastery of educator skills and enhanced visibility as educators. CONCLUSIONS: Unfunded educational leadership positions can advance clinician-educators' commitment to learners and alter the learning environment. Strategies for faculty recruitment and retention in unfunded leadership positions include ensuring meaningful contact with learners, as well as opportunities for personal career development through skills building and enhanced visibility through recognition.

"What is the mechanism?": Cues, barriers, and opportunities to discuss foundational science during internal medicine rounds.

BACKGROUND: Repeated application of foundational science (FS) during medical reasoning results in encapsulation of knowledge needed to develop clinical expertise. Despite proven benefit of educating learners using a FS framework to anchor clinical decision making, how FS is integrated on clinical rotations has not been well characterized. This study examines how and when FS discussion occurs on internal medicine teaching rounds. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a convergent mixed method study. Six internal medicine teams at a quaternary hospital were observed during rounds and team members interviewed. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Descriptive statistics provided a summary of the observations. RESULTS: Our study revealed that rounds used a teacher-centered model where FS knowledge was transmitted as pearls external to the clinical context. FS content arose primarily when the patient was complex. Barriers preventing FS discussion were lack of time and perceived lack of personal FS knowledge. CONCLUSION: Our study describes scenarios that commonly elicit discussion of FS on inpatient medicine rounds highlighting a 'transmission' model of FS knowledge. We suggest a learner-centered model that engages students in the practice of integrating FS into clinical reasoning.

Profiles for Success: Examining the Relationship between Student Profiles and Clerkship Performance Using Latent Profile Analysis.

PHENOMENON: Learning is a complex phenomenon in which learners can vary in their learning orientation, learning approaches, and perception of the learning environment. Learners may be characterized as mastery oriented or performance oriented, and this learning orientation can influence their learning approaches, such as whether to seek feedback or ask for help. The learning environment includes institutional assessment policies and informal interactions that emphasize outcomes and differentiation among students. When learners perceive the learning environment as performance oriented, they feel competition from other learners and fear negative feedback. This complex interplay of learning orientation, its influence on feedback-seeking behavior, and the environmental influence and reinforcement of both can be captured through learner profiles. APPROACH: In this multi-institutional cross-sectional survey study of students from six U.S. medical schools, we investigated learner profiles that characterize how these domains manifest together across individual learners. We then determined how these profiles are associated with students' clerkship grades. Measures included the Patterns of Adaptive Learning for learning orientation, self-reports for learning approaches, and perceptions of the learning environment. We used latent profile analysis to cluster students who share common characteristics around orientation, behavior, and environment. The relationship between these profiles and the percentage of honors earned was examined using multiple regression analysis. FINDINGS: We found four distinct learner profiles within 666 of 974 (68%) analyzable responses: (1) performance oriented with negative perceptions of environment, (2) mastery oriented with desirable learning approaches, (3) "average" group, and (4) mastery orientation only. Profile 1 (M = 39%) and Profile 4 (M = 38%) students received fewer clerkship honors compared with other profiles. Profile 2 students earned a significantly higher percentage of honors grades (M = 54%) compared with other students. Profile 3 students (average group) earned the second highest percentage of honors (M = 46%). Effect sizes comparing the percentage of honors varied from 0.32 to 0.65, indicating medium to large differences. INSIGHTS: The highest performers, as measured by clerkship honors grades, were mastery oriented, perceived a more positive learning environment, and were comfortable asking questions and seeking feedback for their learning. The lowest performing students were performance oriented and had negative perceptions of their learning environments. Contrary to previous findings, we found that the relationship between mastery orientation and learning approaches is not unidirectional but rather seems to be mediated by perceptions of the learning environment.

How Do Clinical Electives during the Clerkship Year Influence Career Exploration? A Qualitative Study.

Problem: Although many students begin medical school with some idea of their specialty interest, up to 80% of these students choose a different specialty by their final year. This pivot tends to happen in the clerkship year, when students are immersed in the clinical environment, gaining a practical understanding of the day-to-day work in different fields. Yet, in this year students have limited experiences with specialties. Clinical electives during the clerkship year may aid students in career development. The authors examined student career exploration through the lens of social cognitive career theory (SCCT). SCCT posits three variables that influence career development: personal goals, self-efficacy, and understanding outcome expectations. With this framework, the authors sought to understand how a program of clinical electives during the clerkship year influences students' perceptions of their career exploration. We aimed to: (1) describe an innovative clerkship elective program designed for career exploration, and (2) explore how this influenced students' career exploration using qualitative analysis. Intervention: Beginning in 2018, students at our institution were required to participate in three 2-week clinical electives during their clerkship year, called Clinical Immersive Experiences (CIExes). CIExes were categorized into four different types: apprenticeship, clinical skills building, integrative (multi-disciplinary), or subspecialty. Authors invited fourth year students to participate in interviews (January to March 2019) about how they selected electives and how these electives contributed to their career exploration. Interviews continued until reaching information sufficiency. Authors coded and analyzed transcripts using template analysis. Context: This curricular intervention took place in the context of large-scale curricular redesign. Students began clerkships partway into their second year of medical school. The family and community medicine clerkship, which was previously a 6-week core clerkship, was changed to a longitudinal format, thus freeing up 6 weeks for electives. Other core clerkships included anesthesia (2 weeks), medicine (8 weeks), neurology (4 weeks), obstetrics and gynecology (6 weeks), pediatrics (6 weeks), psychiatry (4 weeks), and surgery (8 weeks). Impact: From 15 student interviews, we identified three major themes. First, CIExes facilitated personalized career exploration. All students felt that at least one elective helped them solidify their decision about a specialty choice. Second, CIExes promoted focused learning and skills development that complemented core rotations. They noted the benefit of positive relationships with supervisors, particularly attendings, during these electives. Third, students highlighted how these electives fostered a positive learning environment and enhanced wellbeing. SCCT clarified how the CIEx program helped students advance their personal goals, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations during a pivotal time in medical school. Lessons Learned: We learned that from the student perspective, the inclusion of clinical electives in the clerkship year benefited students' career exploration by helping them develop and refine their career goals, increase self-efficacy, and test outcome expectations in a meaningful way as anticipated from SCCT. In addition, we found that CIExes created a positive learning environment that allowed deep relationships to develop in fields of interest and that supported a strong sense of wellbeing. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2021.1891545.

Moving toward Mastery: Changes in Student Perceptions of Clerkship Assessment with Pass/Fail Grading and Enhanced Feedback.

ProblemClerkship grades contribute to a summative assessment culture in clerkships and can therefore interfere with students' learning. For example, by focusing on summative, tiered clerkship grades, students often discount accompanying feedback that could inform future learning. This case report seeks to explore whether an assessment system intervention which eliminated tiered grades and enhanced feedback was associated with changes in student perceptions of clerkship assessment and perceptions of the clinical learning environment. Intervention: In January 2019, our institution eliminated tiered clerkship grading (honors/pass/fail) for medical students during the core clerkship year and implemented pass/fail clerkship grading along with required twice weekly, work-based assessments for formative feedback. Context: In this single institution, cross-sectional survey study, we collected data from fourth-year medical students one year after an assessment system intervention. The intervention entailed changing from honors/pass/fail to pass/fail grading in all eight core clerkships and implementing an electronic system to record twice-weekly real-time formative work-based assessments. The survey queried student perceptions on the fairness and accuracy of grading and the clinical learning environment-including whether clerkships were mastery- or performance-oriented. We compared responses from students one year after the assessment intervention to those from the class one year before the intervention. Comparisons were made using unpaired, two-tailed t-tests or chi-squared tests as appropriate with Cohen's d for effect size estimation for score differences. Content analysis was used to analyze responses from two open-ended questions about feedback and grading. Impact: Survey response rates were similar before and after intervention (76% (127/168) vs. 72% (118/163), respectively) with no between-group differences in demographics. The after-intervention group showed statistically significant increases in the following factors: "grades are transparent and fair" (Cohen's d = 0.80), "students receive useful feedback" (d = 0.51), and "resident evaluation procedures are fair" (d = 0.40). After-intervention respondents perceived the clerkship learning environment to be more mastery-oriented (d = 0.52), less performance approach-oriented (d = 0.63), and less performance avoid-oriented (d = 0.49). There were no statistical differences in the factors "attending evaluation procedures are fair," "evaluations are accurate," "evaluations are biased," or "perception of stereotype threat." Open-ended questions revealed student recommendations to improve clerkship summary narratives, burden of work-based assessment, and in-person feedback. Lessons Learned: After an assessment system change to pass/fail grading with work-based assessments, we observed moderate to large improvements in student perceptions of clerkship grading and the mastery orientation of the learning environment. Our intervention did not improve perceptions around bias in assessment in clerkships. Other medical schools may consider similar interventions to begin to address student concerns with clerkship assessment and promote a more adaptive learning environment.