内科实习医生评分委员会的结构和流程:全国调查结果。

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Academic Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-25 DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000005820
Irene Alexandraki, Nora Osman, Temple Ratcliffe, Wendy Simon, Elexis McBee, Michael Kisielewski, Cindy J Lai
{"title":"内科实习医生评分委员会的结构和流程:全国调查结果。","authors":"Irene Alexandraki, Nora Osman, Temple Ratcliffe, Wendy Simon, Elexis McBee, Michael Kisielewski, Cindy J Lai","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Clerkship grades are important in the residency selection process but can be influenced by individual bias and grading tendencies. Although clinical competency committees are standard in graduate medical education, in undergraduate medical education, they have not gained widespread traction. This study describes structures and processes of grading committees in internal medicine (IM) clerkships and strategies used to mitigate grading bias.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>From September to December 2022, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine conducted its annual survey of IM core clerkship directors at 140 U.S. and U.S. territory-based medical schools. This study was based on 23 questions about grading committees in IM clerkships.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey response rate was 80% (n = 112/140). Forty-seven respondents (42%) reported using grading committees in their IM clerkship (median committee size, 7; range, 3-20) (primarily clerkship leadership and faculty). Responsibilities included determining grades for all students (31 [66%]) and students at borderline of failing (30 [64%]), adjudicating on students with professionalism concerns (25 [53%]), and reconciling discordant clinical evaluations (24 [51%]). To mitigate deliberation bias, committees most frequently used multisource assessments (38 [81%]) and adoption of a shared mental model (36 [77%]). Approximately one-third of grading committees \"rarely\" discussed gender (14 [30%]) and race or ethnicity (15 [32%]), and 7 committees (15%) \"never\" discussed gender and race or ethnicity. Clerkship directors perceived developing a shared mental model (60 [92%]), promoting consistency (59 [91%]) and transparency (57 [88%]) in the process, mitigating assessment bias (58 [89%]), improving student satisfaction (54 [83%]), and sharing grading responsibility (44 [68%]) as potential benefits.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found that grading committees in IM clerkships are not widely used and that existing committees vary in structure and process. These findings highlight an opportunity for medical schools to consider using grading committees to improve grade assignment and address grading inconsistencies.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Structures and Processes of Grading Committees in Internal Medicine Clerkships: Results of a National Survey.\",\"authors\":\"Irene Alexandraki, Nora Osman, Temple Ratcliffe, Wendy Simon, Elexis McBee, Michael Kisielewski, Cindy J Lai\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005820\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Clerkship grades are important in the residency selection process but can be influenced by individual bias and grading tendencies. Although clinical competency committees are standard in graduate medical education, in undergraduate medical education, they have not gained widespread traction. This study describes structures and processes of grading committees in internal medicine (IM) clerkships and strategies used to mitigate grading bias.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>From September to December 2022, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine conducted its annual survey of IM core clerkship directors at 140 U.S. and U.S. territory-based medical schools. This study was based on 23 questions about grading committees in IM clerkships.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey response rate was 80% (n = 112/140). Forty-seven respondents (42%) reported using grading committees in their IM clerkship (median committee size, 7; range, 3-20) (primarily clerkship leadership and faculty). Responsibilities included determining grades for all students (31 [66%]) and students at borderline of failing (30 [64%]), adjudicating on students with professionalism concerns (25 [53%]), and reconciling discordant clinical evaluations (24 [51%]). To mitigate deliberation bias, committees most frequently used multisource assessments (38 [81%]) and adoption of a shared mental model (36 [77%]). Approximately one-third of grading committees \\\"rarely\\\" discussed gender (14 [30%]) and race or ethnicity (15 [32%]), and 7 committees (15%) \\\"never\\\" discussed gender and race or ethnicity. Clerkship directors perceived developing a shared mental model (60 [92%]), promoting consistency (59 [91%]) and transparency (57 [88%]) in the process, mitigating assessment bias (58 [89%]), improving student satisfaction (54 [83%]), and sharing grading responsibility (44 [68%]) as potential benefits.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found that grading committees in IM clerkships are not widely used and that existing committees vary in structure and process. These findings highlight an opportunity for medical schools to consider using grading committees to improve grade assignment and address grading inconsistencies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005820\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005820","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:实习成绩在住院医生选拔过程中非常重要,但可能会受到个人偏见和评分倾向的影响。虽然临床能力委员会是医学研究生教育的标准,但在医学本科教育中,它们还没有得到广泛的重视。本研究介绍了内科实习分级委员会的结构和流程,以及用于减少分级偏差的策略:从 2022 年 9 月到 12 月,内科实习指导委员会对 140 所美国和美国本土医学院的内科核心实习指导进行了年度调查。这项研究基于 23 个有关内科实习分级委员会的问题:调查回复率为 80%(n = 112/140)。47名受访者(42%)表示在他们的实习中使用了评分委员会(委员会人数中位数为7人;范围为3-20人)(主要是实习领导和教师)。委员会的职责包括确定所有学生的成绩(31 [66%])和处于不及格边缘的学生的成绩(30 [64%]),裁定有专业问题的学生的成绩(25 [53%]),以及协调不一致的临床评价(24 [51%])。为减少审议偏差,委员会最常使用的方法是多源评估(38 [81%])和采用共同心智模式(36 [77%])。大约三分之一的评分委员会 "很少 "讨论性别问题(14 [30%])和种族或民族问题(15 [32%]),7 个委员会(15%)"从未 "讨论过性别和种族或民族问题。实习主任认为,建立共同的心智模式(60 [92%])、促进过程的一致性(59 [91%])和透明度(57 [88%])、减少评估偏差(58 [89%])、提高学生满意度(54 [83%])和分担评分责任(44 [68%])是潜在的益处:本研究发现,综合医学实习中的评分委员会并未得到广泛应用,而且现有委员会的结构和流程各不相同。这些发现凸显出医学院校有机会考虑使用评分委员会来改进成绩分配并解决评分不一致的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Structures and Processes of Grading Committees in Internal Medicine Clerkships: Results of a National Survey.

Purpose: Clerkship grades are important in the residency selection process but can be influenced by individual bias and grading tendencies. Although clinical competency committees are standard in graduate medical education, in undergraduate medical education, they have not gained widespread traction. This study describes structures and processes of grading committees in internal medicine (IM) clerkships and strategies used to mitigate grading bias.

Method: From September to December 2022, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine conducted its annual survey of IM core clerkship directors at 140 U.S. and U.S. territory-based medical schools. This study was based on 23 questions about grading committees in IM clerkships.

Results: The survey response rate was 80% (n = 112/140). Forty-seven respondents (42%) reported using grading committees in their IM clerkship (median committee size, 7; range, 3-20) (primarily clerkship leadership and faculty). Responsibilities included determining grades for all students (31 [66%]) and students at borderline of failing (30 [64%]), adjudicating on students with professionalism concerns (25 [53%]), and reconciling discordant clinical evaluations (24 [51%]). To mitigate deliberation bias, committees most frequently used multisource assessments (38 [81%]) and adoption of a shared mental model (36 [77%]). Approximately one-third of grading committees "rarely" discussed gender (14 [30%]) and race or ethnicity (15 [32%]), and 7 committees (15%) "never" discussed gender and race or ethnicity. Clerkship directors perceived developing a shared mental model (60 [92%]), promoting consistency (59 [91%]) and transparency (57 [88%]) in the process, mitigating assessment bias (58 [89%]), improving student satisfaction (54 [83%]), and sharing grading responsibility (44 [68%]) as potential benefits.

Conclusions: This study found that grading committees in IM clerkships are not widely used and that existing committees vary in structure and process. These findings highlight an opportunity for medical schools to consider using grading committees to improve grade assignment and address grading inconsistencies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
期刊最新文献
In Reply to McBride and Walsh. A Critical Look at Racism in the Clinical Learning Environment and the Erasure of DEI Efforts. Championing Civility in the Clinical Learning Environment: Evaluation of a Novel Training Program. Simulation vs RISE UP: A Comparative Study of Approaches for Teaching Emergency Medicine Trainees How to Manage Microaggressions. The Potential of Using ChatGPT-4 Vision for Detecting Image Manipulation in Academic Medicine Articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1