Heather Harrell

Not the same everywhere: Patient-centered learning environments at nine medical schools

BACKGROUND: Learning environments overtly or implicitly address patient-centered values and have been the focus of research for more than 40 years, often in studies about the “hidden curriculum.” However, many of these studies occurred at single medical schools and used time-intensive ethnographic methods. This field of inquiry lacks survey methods and information about how learning environments differ across medical schools.OBJECTIVE: To examine patient-centered characteristics of learning environments at 9 U.S. medical schools.DESIGN: Cross-sectional internet-based survey.PARTICIPANTS: Eight-hundred and twenty-three third- and fourth-year medical students in the classes of 2002 and 2003.MEASUREMENTS: We measured the patient-centeredness of learning environments with the Communication, Curriculum, and Culture (C3) Instrument, a 29-item validated measure that characterizes the degree to which a medical school’s environment fosters patient-centered care. The C3 Instrument contains 3 content areas (role modeling, students’ experiences, and support for students’ patient-centered behaviors), and is designed to measure these areas independent of respondents’ attitudes about patient-centered care. We also collected demographic and attitudinal information from respondents.RESULTS: The variability of C3 scores across schools in each of the 3 content areas of the instrument was striking and statistically significant (P values ranged from .001 to .004). In addition, the patterns of scores on the 3 content areas differed from school to school.CONCLUSIONS: The 9 schools demonstrated unique and different learning environments both in terms of magnitude and patterns of characteristics. Further multiinstitutional study of hidden curricula is needed to further establish the degree of variability that exists, and to assist educators in making informed choices about how to intervene at their own schools.

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

BACKGROUNDRecent 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.METHODSWe 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.FINDINGSStudents 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).DISCUSSIONReflection 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.

Identifying and overcoming the barriers to bedside rounds: a multicenter qualitative study.

Purpose The use of bedside rounds in teaching hospitals has declined, despite recommendations from educational leaders to promote this effective teaching strategy. The authors sought to identify reasons for the decrease in bedside rounds, actual barriers to bedside rounds, methods to overcome trainee apprehensions, and proposed strategies to educate faculty. Method A qualitative inductive thematic analysis using transcripts from audio-recorded, semistructured telephone interviews with a purposive sampling of 34 inpatient attending physicians from 10 academic U.S. institutions who met specific inclusion criteria for “bedside rounds” was performed in 2010. Main outcomes were themes pertaining to barriers, methods to overcome trainee apprehensions, and strategies to educate faculty. Quotations highlighting themes are reported. Results Half of respondents (50%) were associate or full professors, averaging 14 years in academic medicine. Primary reasons for the perceived decline in bedside rounds were physician- and systems related, although actual barriers encountered related to systems, time, and physician-specific issues. To address resident apprehensions, six themes were identified: build partnerships, create safe learning environments, overcome with experience, make bedside rounds educationally worthwhile, respect trainee time, and highlight positive impact on patient care. Potential strategies for educating faculty were identified, most commonly faculty development initiatives, divisional/departmental culture change, and one-on-one shadowing opportunities. Conclusions Bedside teachers encountered primarily systems- and time-related barriers and overcame resident apprehensions by creating a learner-oriented environment. Strategies used by experienced bedside teachers can be used for faculty development aimed at promoting bedside rounds.

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.

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.

The Value of Bedside Rounds: A Multicenter Qualitative Study

Background: Bedside rounds have decreased on teaching services, raising concern about trainees’ clinical skills and patient–physician relationships. Purpose: We sought to identify recognized bedside teachers’ perceived value of bedside rounds to assist in the promotion of bedside rounds on teaching services. Methods: Authors used a grounded theory, qualitative study design of telephone semistructured interviews with bedside teachers (n = 34) from 10 U.S. institutions (2010–2011). Main outcomes were characteristics of participants, themes pertaining to the perceived value of bedside rounds, and quotations highlighting each respective theme. Results: The mean years in academic medicine was 13.7, and 51% were associate or full professors. Six main themes emerged: (a) skill development for learners (e.g., physical examination, communication, and clinical decision-making skills); (b) observation and feedback; (c) role-modeling; (d) team building among trainees, attending, and patient; (e) improved patient care delivery through combined clinical decision-making and team consensus; and (f) the culture of medicine as patient-centered care, which was embodied in all themes. Conclusions: Bedside teachers identify potential benefits of bedside rounds, many of which align with national calls to change our approach to medical education. The practice of bedside rounds enables activities essential to high-quality patient care and education.

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 ¼ of the cohort on USMLE 1 and the bottom ¼. 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.

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.

Course Offerings in the Fourth Year of Medical School: How U.S. Medical Schools Are Preparing Students for Internship.

The fourth year of medical school remains controversial, despite efforts to reform it. A committee from the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine and the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine examined transitions from medical school to internship with the goal of better academic advising for students. In 2013 and 2014, the committee examined published literature and the Web sites of 136 Liaison Committee on Medical Education–accredited schools for information on current course offerings for the fourth year of medical school. The authors summarized temporal trends and outcomes when available. Subinternships were required by 122 (90%) of the 136 schools and allow students to experience the intern’s role. Capstone courses are increasingly used to fill curricular gaps. Revisiting basic sciences in fourth-year rotations helps to reinforce concepts from earlier years. Many schools require rotations in specific settings, like emergency departments, intensive care units, or ambulatory clinics. A growing number of schools require participation in research, including during the fourth year. Students traditionally take fourth-year clinical electives to improve skills, both within their chosen specialties and in other disciplines. Some students work with underserved populations or seek experiences that will be henceforth unavailable, whereas others use electives to “audition” at desired residency sites. Fourth-year requirements vary considerably among medical schools, reflecting different missions and varied student needs. Few objective outcomes data exist to guide students’ choices. Nevertheless, both medical students and educators value the fourth year of medical school and feel it can fill diverse functions in preparing for residency.

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.