Academic Medicine最新文献

Purpose: Cognitive load, specifically extraneous load (EL) reflective of distractions, may provide evidence of a lack of focus, potentially making additional work unsafe. The assessment of trainees performing inpatient consultations provides a helpful model for examining this question. The goal of this study was to provide useful information to clinical and educational leaders to optimize inpatient consultation services and rotations and mitigate potential patient safety risk.

Method: In 2019, using the Consult Cognitive Load instrument, the authors obtained EL data from inpatient consultations performed by internal medicine fellows and psychiatry residents across 5 University of California hospitals. In 2023, the authors constructed a Wright map to compare the participants' EL data with the number of prior initial consultations performed during the shift.

Results: Of 326 trainees contacted, 139 (43%) completed the EL survey items. The Wright map shows that trainees were estimated to agree that interruptions were already distracting at the first consultation of the shift. After 4 consultations, trainees were estimated to strongly agree that interruptions were distracting, and to agree that emotions, extraneous information, and technology were distracting.

Conclusions: The authors propose a quantitative, empirically driven, mean safety limit of 4 new inpatient consultations per shift for trainees to avoid cognitive overload, thereby potentially supporting patient safety. Clinical and educational leaders can adjust this limit to fit the unique needs of their practice setting. A similar approach using cognitive load and item response theory could be used to conduct patient safety research in other domains.

Purpose: Professional identity development (PID) has become an important focus of medical education. To date, contributions of basic science education to physician PID have not been broadly explored. This review explores the literature surrounding the contribution of basic science education to the PID of medical learners and interprets findings critically in terms of the landscapes of practice (LoP) framework.

Method: In this critical scoping review, the authors searched 12 different databases and professional organization websites from January 1988 to October 2022 for references relating to how, if at all, the basic science component of medical education contributes to the PID of medical learners. The LoP learning theory was chosen as a framework for critically interpreting the identified articles.

Results: Of the 6,674 identified references, 257 met the inclusion criteria. After data extraction, content analysis of recorded key findings was used to ensure all findings were incorporated into the synthesis. Findings aligned with and were critically interpreted in relation to the 3 LoP modes of identification: engagement (engaging in the work of a physician), imagination (imagining oneself becoming a "good doctor"), and alignment (aligning with the practices and expectations of a medical community or specialty). Within each mode of identification, it was possible to see how basic science may support, or catalyze, PID and how basic science may serve as a barrier, or an inhibitor, to PID or contribute to the development of negative aspects of identity development.

Conclusions: The LoP learning theory suggests that the effect of basic science on physicians' PID is most effective if educators view themselves as guides through interfaces between their scientific disciplines and medicine. Learners need opportunities to be engaged, to imagine how their current learning activities and developing skills will be useful as future physicians, and to feel alignment with medical specialties.

Abstract: Medical education is a complex field involving interacting contexts of settings, individuals, and institutional culture. Understanding how contexts interact is important for the applicability of research findings. In this article, the authors describe contexts highlighted in this year's Research in Medical Education articles related to being and belonging, the definition of medical education, assessment and feedback, and learning and climate. The authors summarize the various contexts and examine implications for the medical education research community.

Purpose: Educational impact is dependent on student engagement. Assessment design can provide a scaffold for student engagement to determine the focus of student efforts. Little is known about how medical students engage with assessment. Therefore, we asked the following research question: How do medical students engage with the process of assessment and their assessment data in 2 clinical assessment systems?

Method: This multi-institutional, cross-sectional constructivist grounded theory study of fourth-year undergraduate medical students at the University of Washington and Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine assessed 2 different assessment systems: traditional tiered grading, in which clerkship grades were summative, and programmatic assessment, in which students received low-stake, narrative feedback across clerkships with progress based on aggregated performance data in student portfolios. All fourth-year students were invited to participate in one-on-one semistructured interviews guided by student engagement theory between September 2022 and January 2023. Verbatim transcripts underwent iterative, qualitative analysis.

Results: Twenty-two medical students were interviewed, 13 from a traditional grading assessment system and 9 from a programmatic assessment system. Three major ways in which assessment systems affected how students engaged with their assessments were categorized into the affective, cognitive, and behavioral domains of engagement: as a sociocultural statement of value, as the cognitive load associated with the assessment system and practices themselves, and as the locus of power and control in learning and authentic practice.

Conclusions: Medical students' beliefs about assessment goals, cognitive burden of assessment, and relationships with others significantly affected their engagement with their assessments. In assessment systems that reward grading and an archetypal way of being, students report engaging by prioritizing image over learning. In programmatic assessment systems, students describe more fully and authentically engaging in their assessment for and as learning. Systems of assessment communicate what is rewarded, and you get what you reward.

Purpose: Medical training institutions worldwide must be prepared to remediate struggling learners, but there is little empirical evidence around learners' perspectives on remediation efforts. Research shows that emotion has a significant effect on learning, but it has not been well studied in remediation in medical education. Given the high stakes of remediation, understanding more about learners' emotional experience could lead to improvements in remediation programs. This study aimed to explore medical students' emotional experience of failure and remediation to offer opportunities to improve remediation.

Method: This study is a thematic analysis of data collected from July to September 2022 from one-to-one interviews with students from 4 institutions (2 in the United States and 2 in the Netherlands) who had not met expectations on 1 or more medical school assessment(s). Interview questions explored students' experiences with learning of and responding to a performance that was below expected standards, with probes around any mentions of emotions.

Results: Fourteen students participated: 9 from schools in the United States and 5 from schools in the Netherlands. The students perceived the failure and remediation event to be highly significant, reflecting negatively on their suitability for a career as a physician. We identified 5 themes: (1) shame was pervasive and only retrospectively perceived as unwarranted; (2) self-doubt was common and weighty; (3) resentment, blame, and other external-facing emotions were present but softened over time; (4) worry and stress related to perceived career effect differed across countries; and (5) students had mixed emotional reactions to the remediation process.

Conclusions: Medical students have strong emotional responses to failure and remediation. Expecting and considering emotions such as shame, self-doubt, and anger could help educators design better remediation programs. Differences across countries may be at least partially explained by different degrees of time variability and flexibility within the curricula.