Objective. To demonstrate the feasibility of integrating the computer simulation, MyDispense, into a therapeutics course and to measure its effects on student perception and learning. Methods. We conducted a prospective study with an experimental phase and an implementation phase. In the first phase, students were randomized to complete a therapeutics case using MyDispense or traditional paper methods in class. In the second phase, all students completed two therapeutic cases using MyDispense in class with the option to complete four additional outside-of-class cases using MyDispense. Students completed pre- and post-tests in class and three surveys. Results. In the experimental phase, mean test scores increased from pre- to post-test for both MyDispense and traditional paper groups, but the difference between the groups was not statistically significant. Students in the traditional paper group reported statistically significant gains in confidence compared to the MyDispense group. In the implementation phase, mean test scores again increased, however, student perception of the use of MyDispense for therapeutics was negative. Completing the optional outside-of-class cases, however, was positively and significantly correlated with the midterm and final examination scores. Conclusion. Implementation of MyDispense in therapeutics may be feasible and has positive effects (eg, correlation with exam scores, capacity for immediate feedback, and potential for effective self-study). With short-term use and in the absence of assessment methods that also require seeking information from patients, students prefer to learn via traditional paper cases.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound Guided Regional Anesthesia (UGRA) has become the standard for regional anesthesia practice, but there is not a standardized educational approach for training residents. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an UGRA workshop utilizing the theoretical framework of embodied cognition for anesthesiology residents. METHODS: A workshop was developed consisting of didactics, scanning training on standardized patients (SPs) and anatomy reviews on prosected cadavers that focused on the most common UGRA procedures for the upper and lower extremity. At the beginning of the workshop and at the end of the workshop residents completed pre-test and pre-confidence surveys, as well as post-test and post-confidence surveys, respectively to assess the impact of the workshop. RESULTS: 39 residents (100% of the possible residents) participated in the workshop in 2019. Residents confidence in identifying relevant anatomy for the most common UGRA procedures significantly increased in 13 of the 14 measurements. Residents knowledge gain was also statistically significant from the pre-test to post-test (20.13 ± 3.61 and 26.13 ± 2.34; p < .0001). The residents found the course overall to be very useful (4.90 ± 0.38) and in particular the cadaveric component was highly rated (4.74 ± 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we developed a workshop guided by the embodied cognition framework to aid in shortening the overall learning curve of UGRA for anesthesiology residents. Based on our results this workshop should be replicated by institutions that are hoping to decrease the learning curve associated with UGRA and increase residents confidence in identifying the relevant anatomy in UGRA nerve blocks.

The use of the p-value in quantitative research, particularly its threshold of P < 0.05 for determining statistical significance, has long been a cornerstone of statistical analysis in research. However, this standard has been increasingly scrutinized for its potential to mislead findings, especially when the practical significance, the number of comparisons, or the suitability of statistical tests are not properly considered. In response to controversy around use of p-values, the American Statistical Association published a statement in 2016 that challenged the research community to abandon the term statistically significant. This stance has been echoed by leading scientific journals to urge a significant reduction or complete elimination in the reliance on p-values when reporting results. To provide guidance to researchers in health professions education, this paper provides a succinct overview of the ongoing debate regarding the use of p-values and the definition of p-values. It reflects on the controversy by highlighting the common pitfalls associated with p-value interpretation and usage, such as misinterpretation, overemphasis, and false dichotomization between significant and non-significant results. This paper also outlines specific recommendations for the effective use of p-values in statistical reporting including the importance of reporting effect sizes, confidence intervals, the null hypothesis, and conducting sensitivity analyses for appropriate interpretation. These considerations aim to guide researchers toward a more nuanced and informative use of p-values.

PURPOSE: Physician wellbeing is critical to high-quality sustainable healthcare and optimal patient experience. Few objective measures exist to assay wellbeing (as opposed to just pathology) in surgery, or to evaluate the efficacy of wellbeing interventions. Flourishing (as measured by the Mental Health Continuum, MHC) has been suggested as a concise measure of global wellbeing in surgeons. We aimed to establish validity evidence for flourishing in a large national sample of surgical trainees, explore differences by gender and race, and confirm support for the underlying constructs. METHODS: This cross-sectional study of all General Surgery residents at 16 ACGME-accredited academic programs included an online survey of published measures distributed in February 2021. The Mental Health Continuum (MHC), a three-factor model, assesses emotional, social, and psychological wellbeing and is an established metric of psychosocial thriving in non-physicians. A global score cut-off exists for flourishing which represents high wellbeing. Correlation between flourishing and established measures of risk and resilience in surgery were assessed for validity evidence. Differences by gender and race were explored. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to confirm the three-factor structure in surgical trainees. RESULTS: 300 residents (60% non-male, 41% non-white) responded to the survey. For the overall group, flourishing was significantly positively correlated with all wellbeing resilience factors and negatively correlated with all risk factors. This held true for race and gender subgroups based on interaction analyses. CFA and sensitivity analysis results supported the three-factor structure. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings offer validity evidence for flourishing as a measure of global wellbeing and confirm the three-factor structure of emotional, social, and psychological wellbeing in surgical trainees. Thus, the MHC may be a concise tool for assaying wellbeing, within and across subgroups, and for assessing wellbeing intervention effectiveness within the surgery.

Context

Feedback from multiple-choice question (MCQ) assessments is typically limited to a percentage correct score, from which estimates of student competence are inferred. The students' confidence in their answers and the potential impact of incorrect answers on clinical care are seldom recorded. Our purpose was to evaluate student confidence in incorrect responses and to establish how confidence was influenced by the potential clinical impact of answers, question type and gender.

Methods

This was an exploratory, cross-sectional study conducted using a convenience sample of 104 Year 3 dental students completing 20 MCQs on implant dentistry. Students were asked to select the most correct response and to indicate their confidence in it for each question. Identifying both correctness and confidence allowed the designation of uninformed (incorrect and not confident) or misinformed (incorrect but confident) responses. In addition to recording correct/incorrect responses and student confidence, faculty staff designated incorrect responses as benign, inappropriate or potentially harmful if applied to clinical care. Question type was identified as factual or complex. Logistic regression was used to evaluate relationships between student confidence, and question type and gender.

Results

Students were misinformed more often than uninformed (22% versus 8%), and misinformed responses were more common with complex than factual questions (p < 0.05). Students were significantly more likely to be confident of correct than incorrect benign, incorrect inappropriate or incorrect harmful answers (p < 0.001), but, contrary to expectations, confidence did not decrease as answers became more harmful.

Conclusions

Recording student confidence was helpful in identifying uninformed versus misinformed responses, which may allow for targeted remediation strategies. Making errors of calibration (confidence and accuracy) more visible may be relevant in feedback for professional development.

The entrustment framework redirects assessment from considering only trainees competence to decision-making about their readiness to perform clinical tasks independently. Since trainees and supervisors both contribute to entrustment decisions, we examined the cognitive and affective factors that underly their negotiation of trust, and whether trainee demographic characteristics may bias them. Using a document analysis approach, we adapted large language models (LLMs) to examine feedback dialogs (N = 24,187, each with an associated entrustment rating) between medical student trainees and their clinical supervisors. We compared how trainees and supervisors differentially documented feedback dialogs about similar tasks by identifying qualitative themes and quantitatively assessing their correlation with entrustment ratings. Supervisors themes predominantly reflected skills related to patient presentations, while trainees themes were broader-including clinical performance and personal qualities. To examine affect, we trained an LLM to measure feedback sentiment. On average, trainees used more negative language (5.3% lower probability of positive sentiment, p < 0.05) compared to supervisors, while documenting higher entrustment ratings (+ 0.08 on a 1-4 scale, p < 0.05). We also found biases tied to demographic characteristics: trainees documentation reflected more positive sentiment in the case of male trainees (+ 1.3%, p < 0.05) and of trainees underrepresented in medicine (UIM) (+ 1.3%, p < 0.05). Entrustment ratings did not appear to reflect these biases, neither when documented by trainee nor supervisor. As such, bias appeared to influence the emotive language trainees used to document entrustment more than the degree of entrustment they experienced. Mitigating these biases is nonetheless important because they may affect trainees assimilation into their roles and formation of trusting relationships.

Background

Shared decision-making, in which physicians and patients openly explore beliefs, exchange information, and reach explicit closure, may represent optimal physician-patient communication. There are currently no universally accepted methods to assess medical students' competence in shared decision-making.

Objective

To characterize medical students' shared decision-making with standardized patients (SPs) and determine if students' use of shared decision-making correlates with SP ratings of their communication.

Design

Retrospective study of medical students' performance with four SPs.

Participants

Sixty fourth-year medical students.

Measurements

Objective blinded coding of shared decision-making quantified as decision moments (exploration/articulation of perspective, information sharing, explicit closure for a particular decision); SP scoring of communication skills using a validated checklist.

Results

Of 779 decision moments generated in 240 encounters, 312 (40%) met criteria for shared decision-making. All students engaged in shared decision-making in at least two of the four cases, although in two cases 5% and 12% of students engaged in no shared decision-making. The most commonly discussed decision moment topics were medications (n = 98, 31%), follow-up visits (71, 23%), and diagnostic testing (44, 14%). Correlations between the number of decision moments in a case and students' communication scores were low (rho = 0.07 to 0.37).

Conclusions

Although all students engaged in some shared decision-making, particularly regarding medical interventions, there was no correlation between shared decision-making and overall communication competence rated by the SPs. These findings suggest that SP ratings of students' communication skill cannot be used to infer students' use of shared decision-making. Tools to determine students' skill in shared decision-making are needed.

Rationale, aims and objectives

Specialty care referrals have doubled in the last decade. Optimization of the pre-referral workup by a primary care doctor can lead to a more efficient first specialty visit with the patient. Guidance regarding pre-referral laboratory testing is a first step towards improving the specialty referral process. Our aim was to establish consensus regarding appropriate pre-referral workup for common gastrointestinal and liver conditions.

Methods

The Delphi method was used to establish local consensus for recommending certain laboratory tests prior to specialty referral for 13 clinical conditions. Seven conditions from The University of Michigan outpatient referral guidelines were used as a baseline. An expert panel of three PCPs and nine gastroenterologists from three academic hospitals participated in three iterative rounds of electronic surveys. Each panellist ranked each test using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Local panellists could recommend additional tests for the initial diagnoses, and also recommended additional diagnoses needing guidelines: iron deficiency anaemia, abdominal pain, irritable bowel syndrome, fatty liver disease, liver mass and cirrhosis. Consensus was defined as ≥70% of experts scoring ≥4 (agree or strongly agree).

Results

Applying Delphi methodology to extrapolate externally developed referral guidelines for local implementation resulted in considerable modifications. For some conditions, many tests from the external group were eliminated by the local group (abdominal bloating; iron deficiency anaemia; irritable bowel syndrome). In contrast, for chronic diarrhoea, abnormal liver enzymes and viral hepatitis, all/most original tests were retained with additional tests added. For liver mass, fatty liver disease and cirrhosis, there was high concordance among the panel with few tests added or eliminated.

Conclusions

Consideration of externally developed referral guidelines using a consensus-building process leads to significant local tailoring and adaption. Our next steps include implementation and dissemination of these guidelines and evaluating their impact on care efficiency in clinical practice.