Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development最新文献

Background: Medical education integrates skills training and simulation to prepare students for clinical tasks. A seminar on interventional radiology was restructured to include specific practical training utilizing a 3D-catheter model. We aimed to investigate the complex interplay between student evaluations, their visual-spatial ability and practical performance.

Methods: The seminar comprised a short plenary introduction followed by 3 practical training units. Students were tested for their visual-spatial ability and their catheter insertion performance. Students rated the seminar and their interest in the subject. Data were subjected to descriptive, factorial, regression, and moderating analysis.

Results: A total of 141 medical students enrolled in the seminar. They attributed a high didactic and practical quality and expressed great interest in the subject. Male students outperformed females in the cube perspective test. In the practical examination, males needed significantly less time on average (57.9 s) compared to females (73.1 s). However, there were no significant differences in the performance score, with a maximum of 5 attainable points: males 4.61 and females 4.51. The seminar evaluation explained a large portion of the variance (48.6%) in students' interest in the subject. There was a moderating role of practical quality (β = 0.12, P < .05) on the link between the cube perspective test and the practical examination: rated high practical quality could partly compensate for low cube perspective scores, enhancing performance in the practical examination.

Conclusions: Well-designed practical courses and a perceived high teaching quality may assist students with deficits in visual-spatial ability to acquire clinical-practical skills. Such initiatives not only enhance learning outcomes across diverse student groups but also stimulate interest in specialized fields like interventional radiology, thereby potentially guiding future career paths in medicine.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) application is increasingly used in all fields, especially, in medicine. However, for the successful incorporation of AI-driven tools into medicine, healthcare professional should be equipped with the necessary knowledge. From that, we aimed to assess the AI readiness among medical students in Jordan.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among medical students across 6 Jordanian universities. Prevalidated Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale for Medical Students questionnaire was used. The questionnaire was distributed through social media groups of students. SPSS v.27 was used for analysis.

Results: A total of 858 responses were collected. The mean AI readiness score was 64.2%. Students scored more in the ability domain with a mean of 22.57. We found that academic performance (Grade point average) positively associated with overall AI readiness (P = .023), and prior exposure to AI through formal education or experience significantly enhances readiness (P = .009). In contrast, AI readiness levels did not significantly vary across different medical schools in Jordan. Notably, most students (84%) did not receive a formal education about AI from their schools.

Conclusion: Incorporation of AI education in medical curricula is crucial to close knowledge gaps and ensure that students are prepared for the use of AI in their future career. Our findings highlight the importance of preparing students to engage with AI technologies, and to be equipped with the necessary knowledge about its aspect.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine students' perceptions of pass/fail scoring for Step 1, particularly when applying to competitive specialties. This study also investigated whether this transition increased anxiety among medical students and elicited student perspectives on the most critical components of residency applications.

Introduction: The United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 Board Exam transitioned from a traditional numeric score to pass/fail for exams taken on or after January 26, 2022. One justification for this change, according to a statement from USMLE, was to ease the transition between undergraduate and graduate medical education. Although many factors are considered when selecting candidates to interview for residency, Step 1 scores were historically used as an important metric. Few studies specifically evaluated medical student's attitudes toward the change in Step 1 grading.

Methods: An online survey was distributed to Penn State College of Medicine medical students in the 2024 to 2027 classes. Statistical analysis was conducted on responses to research plans, attitudes regarding Step 1 pass/fail, match rates, and importance of application components.

Results: There was a 21.3% response rate (127/596) to the survey with 30.7% pursuing a competitive specialty. Students applying into competitive specialties felt their chances of matching changed significantly compared to students applying to other specialties (either increased (25.6% vs 10.2%, P < .001), or decreased (28.2% vs10.3%, P < .001). Majority of students (73.2%) agreed with the decision to make Step 1 pass/fail, however, students reported increased anxiety surrounding Step 2 scores. There was a significant association between which aspects students believed were most important for matching (letters of recommendation and performance on Acting Internships) and those they believed program directors would weigh heaviest (P < .001).

Conclusion: Medical students report increased anxiety with Step 2 after Step 1 became pass/fail, although students overwhelmingly agreed with this change. To address this, medical schools should offer further guidance and resources to students, focusing on mentorship and methods to optimize residency applications for their chosen specialties.

Objectives: During the COVID-19 pandemic, medical education programs were challenged to optimize learning while balancing social interaction with exposure risk. In response, our internal medicine (IM) residency program transitioned to "simulcast" educational sessions. In simulcast sessions, multiple small groups of learners met in person in separate rooms and connected to the large-group session via videoconferencing. This qualitative study describes IM residents' perceptions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of learning in simulcast compared to virtual and in-person settings during the pandemic.

Methods: Categorical IM residents at Penn State during the academic year 2020-2021 were invited to participate. Eligible residents participated in one 30-min virtual, semistructured focus group. We used inductive thematic coding to analyze resident responses.

Results: Forty-eight percent (n = 29/60) of invited residents participated in focus groups. In the simulcast setting, participants felt more accountability to participate in their small groups compared to a larger group or virtual setting. Educational experiences varied based upon facilitator skill level. Overall, in-person settings were preferred to virtual, when possible, due to increased social connection. Respondents identified educator enthusiasm and presentation quality as key to engagement regardless of setting.

Conclusion: Residents had variable responses to the simulcast setting based upon their comfort with participation by group size, desire for social connection, and perception of teaching strategies. The key identified pitfalls to simulcast teaching were resident discomfort in small groups, heterogeneous learning experience, lack of engagement, and technology challenges. These pitfalls can be mitigated through strategic distribution of learners in groups, trained facilitators, and interactive teaching modalities. Given that simulcast and mixed (simulcast, virtual, and in-person) teaching settings are here to stay postpandemic, anticipating pitfalls and creating adaptable educational content that translates in multiple settings is crucial.

Objectives: Life-sustaining treatments (LST) aim to prolong life without reversing the underlying medical condition. Being associated with a high risk of developing unwanted adverse outcomes, decisions about LST are routinely discussed with patients at hospital admission, particularly when it comes to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Physicians may encounter many challenges when enforcing shared decision-making in this domain. In this study, we map out how junior physicians in Southern Switzerland refer to their experiences when conducting LST discussions with hospitalized patients and their learning strategies related to this.

Methods: In this qualitative exploratory study, we conducted semi-directive interviews with junior physicians working at the regional public hospital in Southern Switzerland and analyzed them with an inductive thematic analysis.

Results: Nine physicians participated. We identified 3 themes: emotional burden, learning strategies and practices for conducting discussions. Participants reported feeling unprepared and often distressed when discussing LST with patients. Factors associated with emotional burden were related to the context and to how physicians developed and managed their emotions. Participants signaled having received insufficient education to prepare for discussing LST. They reported learning to discuss LST essentially through trial and error but particularly appreciated the possibility of mentoring and experiential training. Explanations that physicians gave about LST took into account patients' frequent misconceptions. Physicians reported feeling under pressure to ensure that decisions documented were medically indicated and being more at ease when patients decided by themselves to limit treatments. Communication was deemed as an important skill.

Conclusions: Junior physicians experienced conducting LST discussions as challenging and felt caught between advocating for medically relevant decisions and respecting patients' autonomy. Participants reported a substantive emotional burden and feeling unprepared for this task, essentially because of a lack of adequate training. Interventions aiming to ameliorate junior physicians' competency in discussing LST can positively affect their personal experiences and decisional outcomes.