Academic Medicine最新文献

Purpose: Medical education journal editors work to improve scholarly rigor and expand access to scholarship. How editors conceptualize these dual roles is unknown and holds implications for the kinds of scholarship that are valued and made visible through publication. The authors applied the concept of capacity building to examine how medical education journal editors conceptualize and operationalize capacity building and to identify the contextual factors that support or constrain these efforts.

Method: Using a reflexive thematic approach, the authors interviewed 13 editors of 11 medical education journals between February 2022 and March 2023. Data collection and analyses were performed iteratively. Interview transcripts were coded by 2 authors to generate initial codes, which were then refined by the research team until final themes were created.

Results: Editors viewed capacity building "making space" for people and perspectives. Making space for people included efforts to support editors and reviewers, offer feedback to authors, and engage with readers. Making space for perspectives included efforts to promote discussion on diversity and inclusion and to introduce ideas perceived to advance the field. How editors made space was shaped by a journal's ecosystem, including local features unique to each journal (e.g., aims, scope, readership) and system-level factors that influenced all journals (e.g., English as the language of science, academic promotion and tenure).

Conclusions: Although medical education journal editors' capacity-building work will inevitably guide future scholars and scholarship, their work should be considered in the context of a larger ecosystem, including such features as institutional academies for scholarship and promotion and tenure policies. Improving rigor and expanding access will require clarifying how editors' approach and understand capacity building to advance as a field. Future work should clarify how individual journals' capacity-building efforts can be facilitated and how journals can collectively reimagine spaces for knowledge-building conversations.

Purpose: Effective interprofessional health care team (IHT) members collaborate to reduce medical errors, use resources effectively, and improve patient outcomes, making interprofessional collaboration imperative. Because physicians are often designated as the positional leaders of IHTs, understanding their perspectives on collaboration within IHTs could help to mitigate the disconnects between what is suggested in theory and what is happening in practice. This study aimed to explore leader-follower dynamics within medical teams that are commonly working in clinical care contexts.

Method: Using a constructivist approach, the authors conducted 12 individual, semistructured interviews from November 2022 to September 2023 with attending physicians who have led IHTs in perioperative (i.e., preoperative clinic, operating room, postoperative and recovery unit) or emergency department settings. The transcripts were analyzed from December 2022 to December 2023 using inductive thematic analysis.

Results: Three themes explained the physician perceptions of IHT leadership-followership dynamics: (1) physicians are comfortable sharing leadership intraprofessionally, (2) the clinical culture and environment constrain interprofessional followership and shared leadership, and (3) hierarchical models hold true even while active followers are appreciated, when appropriate.

Conclusions: The data in this study suggest that, in perioperative and emergency department settings, shared leadership largely may not occur interprofessionally but occurs intraprofessionally. Participants suggested that the clinical culture and environment (i.e., legal concerns, hierarchical assumption, patient care ownership responsibilities) constrained interprofessional followership and shared leadership. On the basis of the study's findings and how they align with previous research, future research into interprofessional collaboration and followership roles should focus on what factors enable and constrain active followership and shared leadership. Such collaboration can only be achieved when active followership and shared leadership are allowed and promoted. These findings and others suggest that not all contexts are enabling such types of interprofessional collaboration due to legal concerns, hierarchical traditions, and patient ownership considerations.

Purpose: Physicians often experience moral distress from being prevented from taking what they believe to be the right course of action. Although causes and consequences of moral distress have been studied, little research offers insight into the significance of feeling morally challenged, especially in medicine. This study was undertaken to advance understanding of what physicians experience when encountering morally challenging situations and to examine how those experiences influence their interactions with the world of health care.

Method: Guided by hermeneutic phenomenology, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with purposefully sampled Canadian physicians from September 2022 to January 2023. Analysis used Van Manen's 6 activities of hermeneutic research and included "story crafting" to sharpen insights. Late in that process, Van Manen's "lived existentials" was determined to provide a strong framework for physicians' experiences of moral distress.

Results: Of the 12 physicians interviewed, all experienced varied and long-lasting emotional reactions to morally challenging experiences. The emotions associated with moral distress, reported as inevitable, were experienced in ways that aligned with the lived existentials of body, space, time, and relations.

Conclusions: A richer understanding of physicians' lived experiences with moral distress can help mentors and educators more thoughtfully engage in conversations about it with colleagues and learners. This study highlights the core dimensions of moral distress through body, space, time, and relations, thereby providing a means to enrich discussion about emotions and their transformational power. Through such nuanced consideration, calls for emotional candor may be strengthened to enhance practice by acknowledging the scope of impact that efforts to deliver care are likely to provoke.

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.

Abstract: There is a growing trend of resident and fellow physician unionization in the United States, with 14 new housestaff unions formed at private employers since 2022. This resurgence of housestaff union organizing parallels the last era of housestaff activism in the 1960s. Today's housestaff organizing takes place within the context of longstanding challenges in medicine, including the burnout and systemic inequities highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and an increase in national activism and labor organizing. Housestaff unions offer opportunities for residents and fellows to negotiate for improvements across multiple issues.In this Commentary, the authors focus on common bargaining topics: poor working conditions, undercompensation, and inadequate representation in an increasingly corporatized health care landscape. The authors also discuss the role of collective bargaining for improving the housestaff experience and address common concerns about unionization. Finally, the authors explore the limited evidence of the impact of unions in health care settings and outline key considerations for future scholarship.The current generation of housestaff started their medical careers with an awareness of systemic challenges to the profession and have responded through collective organizing. While the short- and long-term ramifications of housestaff organizing need further study, the authors express optimism that unionization will lead to improved working conditions and thus improved health care delivery.

Problem: A shortage of curriculum-aligned formative multiple-choice questions (FMCQs) remains despite their known learning benefits in preclinical medical education due to limitations on teaching faculty time and other reasons. In response, students often use extramural resources such as commercial or collaborative question banks; however, these options are often expensive and cannot be aligned with the content of each school's unique curriculum. In addition, students need feedback on their learning in a manner that parallels the format of summative assessments. In this pilot, the authors aimed to enhance student learning by creating an intramural formative practice resource that was developed as the curriculum unfolded under the direction of the faculty leading the concurrently running curricular units.

Approach: The authors developed a workflow known as Professor-Reviewed Exam Practice (PREP) in 2023. PREP partnered preclinical medical students and faculty to create vignette-style, single best response FMCQs with feedback for every lecture and self-guided learning module in multiple preclinical blocks of The Ohio State University College of Medicine undergraduate medical curriculum.

Outcomes: PREP established a sustainable, student-led, faculty-guided workflow that created high-quality, curriculum-aligned FMCQs for student use in the preclinical medical curriculum over a 14-month period. Usage rates were high across multiple preclinical blocks, reflecting high student demand for FMCQs of this nature and their value as a study aid. Survey data showed faculty agreed that their time commitment and role in the PREP workflow was appropriate.

Next steps: Future work will evaluate the benefits of PREP to students by exploring the potential impact of PREP FMCQs on summative assessment performance and if writing FMCQs confers benefits to PREP team members. Faculty survey indicated that performance data from PREP FMCQs could be used to tailor upcoming teaching and learning methods, which is an area for future inquiry.

Abstract: Assessor stringency and leniency (ASL)-an assessor's tendency to award low or high scores-has a significant effect on workplace-based assessments. Outliers on this spectrum have a disproportionate effect. However, no method has been published for quantifying ASL or identifying outlier stringent or lenient assessors using workplace-based assessment data. The authors propose the mean delta method, which compares the scores that an assessor awards to trainees with those trainees' mean scores. This novel, simple method can be used to quantify ASL and identify outlier assessors without requiring specialized statistical knowledge or software. As a worked example, the mean delta method was applied to a set of end-of-shift assessments completed in a large Canadian academic emergency department from July 1, 2017, to May 31, 2018, and used to examine the net effect of ASL on learners' assessment scores. A total of 3,908 assessments were completed by 99 assessors for 151 trainees, with a median (interquartile range) of 37 (12-39) completed assessments per trainee. Using cutoff values of 1.5 and 2 standard deviations, a total of 11 and 3 outlier assessors were identified, respectively. Moreover, ASL changed overall scores by more than the mean difference between years of training for nearly 1 in 4 learners. The mean delta method was able to quantify ASL and identify outlier lenient and stringent assessors. It was also used to quantify the net effect of ASL on individual trainees. This method could be used to further study outlier assessors, to identify assessors who may benefit most from targeted coaching and feedback, and to measure changes in assessors' tendencies over time or with specific intervention.