Olson, Emily M.

Abstract Background Existing formal feedback systems in graduate medical education often rely heavily on intangible Likert Scales linked to ACGME milestones as an end-of-rotation summative assessment. However, more frequent, actionable, formative feedback based on observations is essential to personal growth. Objective To evaluate the impact of changing from a milestone-based evaluation form to a brief narrative-based feedback form in a Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) fellowship as an exploratory pilot project. Our aim was to describe change in perception of feedback quality and the impact on Clinical Competency Committee (CCC) decisions. Methods We compared the quality of written rotation feedback before and after implementing a shorter feedback form on January 1, 2024 for 15 PCCM fellows at a single large academic institution using the Quality of Assessment for Learning (QuAL) score, (July 2023-December 2023 compared to January 2024-July 2024), fellow pre- and post-surveys (December 2023 and June 2024) and a CCC focus group (June 2024). Results Overall QuAL score improved significantly after narrative-based feedback form implementation (2.71 pre [n = 75] vs 3.70 post [n = 85], p < 0.001). Surveys had 13/14 (92.8%) fellows respond pre-intervention and 8/14 (57.1%) post-intervention. There was significant improvement in the number of fellows indicating they could identify new learning goals based on written feedback after implementation of the new form (23.1% pre vs 75.0% post, p = 0.03). The CCC focus group with 5 of 8 eligible faculty participating described milestone decisions were better supported by more detailed narratives. Conclusions Implementing a brief narrative-based form improved feedback quality and the number of trainees able to create learning goals. The CCC identified that the new form provided better details to support milestone recommendations.

Background: Residency is a time of personal and professional growth. Resident assessment and feedback are an integral part of that process. However, assessment may be influenced by various types of bias, including gender bias. Women are less likely than men to be identified by their professional titles in many settings. The use of professional titles for residents in written assessments is unknown and may be a marker of bias. Objective: To assess for differences and trends regarding the use of professional and personal titles in formal resident assessments related to gender-based resident–faculty pairs. Methods: Electronic assessments of postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) internal medicine residents from the 2019–2020 academic year were used. Professional title use was analyzed, as it relates to resident–faculty gendered dyads, among other variables. The primary outcome of professional title usage was split into a binary variable by professional versus other titles and analyzed using logistic regression and random-effects model. Results: We analyzed 1,363 unique electronic assessments (37.8% from female faculty). Female residents were more likely to be addressed by a professional title than their male colleagues (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; confidence interval [CI], 1.2–2.4; p = 0.02). We found no difference in professional title usage based on resident–faculty gendered dyads. After adjusting for repeated faculty and resident encounters with random-effects model, secondary analysis found no significant difference in evaluation of word count between gendered dyads. Conclusions: The analysis found no significant difference in professional title usage based on resident–faculty dyads. In our analysis, female residents were significantly more likely to have their professional title used on assessments than male residents.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third-most lethal cancer in the USA, and early detection through screening is crucial for improving outcomes. However, significant disparities in access and utilisation of CRC screening exist among patients with limited English proficiency. Our Quality Improvement (QI) team developed and implemented a video, featuring a Somali-speaking physician, created with input from internal medicine (IM) residents, patient education experts and community leaders to increase the rate of CRC screening uptake within a Somali-speaking population receiving primary care within an IM Residency Clinic. The baseline proportion of average-risk Somali-speaking patients who had successfully been screened for CRC was 46.3% (63/134). The proportion of patients agreeable to undergo CRC screening was assessed monthly from the beginning of video implementation (June 2022 to December 2022). We found that this intervention corresponded with a significant increase in willingness to undergo CRC screening from 36.4% to 100% during the early stages of intervention. At the end of our measurement timeframe, the proportion of the original population fully screened for CRC was 50.7% (68/134). Implementation of the video intervention was also assessed and determined to be minimally disruptive to the clinic flow.

Abstract Background Procedural training is a required competency in internal medicine (IM) residency, yet limited data exist on residents’ experience of procedural training. Objectives We sought to understand how gender impacts access to procedural training among IM residents. Methods A mixed-methods, explanatory sequential study was performed. Procedure volume for IM residents between 2016 and 2020 was assessed at two large academic residencies (Program A and Program B: 399 residents and 4,020 procedures). Procedural rates and actual versus expected procedure volume by gender were compared, with separate analyses by clinical environment (intensive care unit [ICU] or structured procedural service). Semistructured gender-congruent focus groups were conducted. Topics included identity formation as a proceduralist and the resident procedural learning experience, including perceived gender bias in procedure allocation. Results Compared with men, women residents performed disproportionately fewer ICU procedures per month at Program A (1.4 vs. 2.7; P < 0.05) but not at Program B (0.36 vs. 0.54; P = 0.23). At Program A, women performed only 47% of ICU procedures, significantly fewer than the 54% they were expected to perform on the basis of their time on ICU rotations (P < 0.001). For equal gender distribution of procedural volume at Program A, 11% of the procedures performed by men would have needed to have been performed by women instead. Gender was not associated with differences in the Program A structured procedural service (53% observed vs. 52% expected; P = 0.935), Program B structured procedural service (40% observed vs. 43% expected; P = 0.174), or in Program B ICUs (33% observed vs. 34% expected; P = 0.656). Focus group analysis identified that women from both residencies perceived that assertiveness was required for procedural training in unstructured learning environments. Residents felt that gender influenced access to procedural opportunities, ability to self-advocate for procedural experience, identity formation as a proceduralist, and confidence in acquiring procedural skills. Conclusion Gender disparities in access to procedural training during ICU rotations were seen at one institution but not another. There were ubiquitous perceptions that assertiveness was important to access procedural opportunities. We hypothesize that structured allocation of procedures would mitigate disparities by allowing all residents to access procedural training regardless of self-advocacy. Residency programs should adopt structured procedural training programs to counteract inequities.

AbstractBackgroundMany hospitalized patients do not understand or agree with their clinicians about their discharge plan. However, the effect of disagreement on discharge outcomes is unknown.ObjectiveTo measure the correlation between patient‐clinician care agreement and discharge outcomes.DesignA prospective cohort study was performed from September 2019 to March 2020 (Rochester, MN, USA).Setting and ParticipantsInternal medicine patients and their primary clinician (resident, advanced practice clinician or attending) hospitalized from September 2019‐March 2020 at Mayo Clinic Hospital. Participants were independently surveyed following hospital day #3 ward rounds regarding the goals of the hospitalization and discharge planning.Main Outcome and MeasuresPatient–clinician agreement for main diagnosis, patient's main concern, and four domains of discharge planning was assessed. Readiness for hospital discharge, delayed discharge, and 30‐day readmission was measured. Then, associations between patient‐clinician agreement, delayed discharge, and 30‐day readmissions were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsOf the 436 patients and clinicians, 17.7% completely agreed about what needs to be accomplished before dismissal, 40.8% agreed regarding discharge date, and 71.1% agreed regarding discharge location. In the multivariable model, patient–clinician agreement scores were not significantly correlated with discharge outcomes. Patient–clinician agreement on discharge location was higher for those discharged to home (81.5%) versus skilled nursing facility (48.5%) or assisted living (42.9%) (p < .0001). The agreement on the expected length of stay was highest for home‐goers (45.9%) compared to skilled nursing (32.0%) or assisted living (21.4%) (p = .004).ConclusionsPatients and their clinicians frequently disagree about when and where a patient will go after hospitalization, particularly for those discharged to a skilled nursing facility. While disagreement did not predict discharge outcomes, our findings suggest opportunities to improve effective communication and promote shared mental models regarding discharge earlier in the hospital stay.