Lynn M. Cleary

Toward Defining the Foundation of the MD Degree: Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency.

Currently, no standard defines the clinical skills that medical students must demonstrate upon graduation. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education bases its standards on required subject matter and student experiences rather than on observable educational outcomes. The absence of such established outcomes for MD graduates contributes to the gap between program directors’ expectations and new residents’ performance. In response, in 2013, the Association of American Medical Colleges convened a panel of experts from undergraduate and graduate medical education to define the professional activities that every resident should be able to do without direct supervision on day one of residency, regardless of specialty. Using a conceptual framework of entrustable professional activities (EPAs), this Drafting Panel reviewed the literature and sought input from the health professions education community. The result of this process was the publication of 13 core EPAs for entering residency in 2014. Each EPA includes a description, a list of key functions, links to critical competencies and milestones, and narrative descriptions of expected behaviors and clinical vignettes for both novice learners and learners ready for entrustment. The medical education community has already begun to develop the curricula, assessment tools, faculty development resources, and pathways to entrustment for each of the 13 EPAs. Adoption of these core EPAs could significantly narrow the gap between program directors’ expectations and new residents’ performance, enhancing patient safety and increasing residents’, educators’, and patients’ confidence in the care these learners provide in the first months of their residency training.

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.

“forward Feeding” About Students' Progress: The Case for Longitudinal, Progressive, and Shared Assessment of Medical Students

In this issue, Frellsen et al1 provide survey data about the concerns of and constraints on clerkship directors working with students who “struggle.” They identify the reasons for poor performance, which run the gamut from inadequate knowledge to unprofessional behavior. They summarize the challenges that clerkship directors face in identifying marginal and unsatisfactory performance, and the lack of robust remediation programs. They provide a snapshot of the policies and practice at medical schools about sharing student performance information. In her point–counterpoint response, Dr. Cox2 articulates the reasons against sharing information about student performance. Although I understand her points, I believe we are obligated to share this information, for the following reasons:

Changes in medical students' exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions from 2003 to 2012: a multi-institutional follow-up survey.

Purpose To ascertain whether changes occurred in medical student exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions from 2003–2012, which factors influence exposure and attitudes, and whether exposure and attitudes influence future plans to interact with drug companies. Method In 2012, the authors surveyed 1,269 third-year students at eight U.S. medical schools. Items explored student exposure to, attitudes toward, and future plans regarding drug company interactions. The authors compared 2012 survey data with their 2003 survey data from third-year students at the same schools. Results The 2012 response rate was 68.2% (866/1,269). Compared with 2003, in 2012, students were significantly less frequently exposed to interactions (1.6/month versus 4.1/month, P < .001), less likely to feel entitled to gifts (41.8% versus 80.3%, P < .001), and more apt to feel gifts could influence them (44.3% versus 31.2%, P < .001). In 2012, 545/839 students (65.0%) reported private outpatient offices were the main location of exposure to pharmaceutical representatives, despite spending only 18.4% of their clerkship–rotation time there. In 2012, 310/703 students (44.1%) were unaware their schools had rules restricting interactions, and 467/837 (55.8%) planned to interact with pharmaceutical representatives during residency. Conclusions Students in 2012 had less exposure to drug company interactions and were more likely to have skeptical attitudes than students in 2003. These changes are consistent with national organizations’ recommendations to limit and teach about these interactions. Continued efforts to study and influence students’ and physician role models’ exposures to and attitudes about drug companies are warranted.

Relationships Between Drug Company Representatives and Medical Students: Medical School Policies and Attitudes of Student Affairs Deans and Third-Year Medical Students

ObjectivesThe authors sought to ascertain the details of medical school policies about relationships between drug companies and medical students as well as student affairs deans’ attitudes about these interactions.MethodsIn 2005, the authors surveyed deans and student affairs deans at all U.S. medical schools and asked whether their schools had a policy about relationships between drug companies and medical students. They asked deans at schools with policies to summarize them, queried student affairs deans regarding their attitudes about gifts, and compared their attitudes with those of students who were studied previously.ResultsIndependently of each other, 114 out of 126 deans (90.5%) and 114 out of 126 student affairs deans (90.5%) responded (identical numbers are not misprints). Ten schools had a policy regarding relationships between medical students and drug company representatives. Student affairs deans were much more likely than students to perceive that gifts were inappropriate.ConclusionThese 2005 policies show trends meriting review by current medical schools in considering how to comply with the 2008 Association of American Medical Colleges recommendations about relationships between drug companies and medical students or physicians.

Multi-site reliability and validity of a diagnostic pattern-recognition knowledge-assessment instrument.

No abstract available.