Wittich, Christopher M.

BACKGROUNDThere is little research regarding characteristics of effective continuing medical education (CME) presentations in hospital medicine (HM). Therefore, we sought to identify associations between validated CME teaching effectiveness scores and characteristics of CME presentations in the field of HM.DESIGN/SETTINGThis was a cross‐sectional study of participants and didactic presentations from a national HM CME course in 2014.MEASUREMENTSParticipants provided CME teaching effectiveness (CMETE) ratings using an instrument with known validity evidence. Overall CMETE scores (5‐point scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) were averaged for each presentation, and associations between scores and presentation characteristics were determined using the Kruskal‐Wallis test. The threshold for statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.RESULTSA total of 277 out of 368 participants (75.3%) completed evaluations for the 32 presentations. CMETE scores (mean [standard deviation]) were significantly associated with the use of audience response (4.64 [0.16]) versus no audience response (4.49 [0.16]; P = 0.01), longer presentations (≥30 minutes: 4.67 [0.13] vs <30 minutes: 4.51 [0.18]; P = 0.02), and larger number of slides (≥50: 4.66 [0.17] vs <50: 4.55 [0.17]; P = 0.04). There were no significant associations between CMETE scores and use of clinical cases, defined goals, or summary slides.CONCLUSIONSTo our knowledge, this is the first study regarding associations between validated teaching effectiveness scores and characteristics of effective CME presentations in HM. Our findings, which support previous research in other fields, indicate that CME presentations may be improved by increasing interactivity through the use of audience response systems and allowing longer presentations. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2015;10:569–573. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine

ABSTRACT Background: Sleep deprivation and fatigue have been associated with medical errors, clinical performance decrements, and reduced quality of life for both practicing physicians and medical students. Greater understanding of the impact of sleep quantity on clinical reasoning could improve patient care. The purpose of our pilot study was to examine relationships between clinical reasoning (assessed by functional magnetic resonance imaging) and sleep time (measured in different ways by actigraphy) while answering multiple-choice questions (MCQs) from licensing agencies. Methods: Residents and faculty were administered a clinical reasoning exercise (MCQs from licensing bodies) during functional magnetic resonance imaging. Usual sleep patterns were sampled with actigraphy. Covariate analysis was used to examine the relationship between sleep duration (mean sleep, minimum sleep, maximum sleep) and brain activity during clinical reasoning (solving MCQs from licensing bodies). Results: The mean sleep time over the duration of monitoring for the group was 7.19 hours (SD 0.66) with a range of 6.1 to 8.1 hours (internal medicine faculty 7.1 hours, SD 0.41; internal medicine residents 7.27 hours, SD 0.92). There was a negative relationship between activation in the prefrontal cortex and minimum sleep time while reflecting on MCQs. Conclusion: Our findings provide evidence that the quantity of sleep can modulate brain activity while completing a clinically meaningful task that should be confirmed in larger studies. Our findings suggest that the construct of sleepiness may be more complex than appreciated by many and that the most important of these sleep measures in terms of outcomes remains to be determined.

AbstractIntroductionUnderstanding clinical reasoning is essential for patient care and medical education. Dual‐processing theory suggests that nonanalytic reasoning is an essential aspect of expertise; however, assessing nonanalytic reasoning is challenging because it is believed to occur on the subconscious level. This assumption makes concurrent verbal protocols less reliable assessment tools.MethodsFunctional magnetic resonance imaging was used to explore the neural basis of nonanalytic reasoning in internal medicine interns (novices) and board‐certified staff internists (experts) while completing United States Medical Licensing Examination and American Board of Internal Medicine multiple‐choice questions.ResultsThe results demonstrated that novices and experts share a common neural network in addition to nonoverlapping neural resources. However, experts manifested greater neural processing efficiency in regions such as the prefrontal cortex during nonanalytical reasoning.ConclusionsThese findings reveal a multinetwork system that supports the dual‐process mode of expert clinical reasoning during medical evaluation.

Medical professionalism is a multifaceted paradigm and is an essential component of medical education. Gross anatomy is a laboratory to teach professionalism, and promoting critical reflection in medical students is a prerequisite to furthering professionalism. The aim of this study was to determine if professionalism case discussions during a Gross Anatomy course improve students' reflections using a validated reflection instrument (12 items; five‐point Likert scale where 1 = Disagree, 2 = Disagree with reservation, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree with reservation, 5 = Agree). Four facilitated reflection sessions were aimed at fostering reflective capacity through reflection on elements of professionalism. Results did not show a significant change between pre‐and postintervention reflection scores (3.45 ± 0.61 vs. 3.48 ± 0.51; P = 0.82). Historical control students were found to have significantly higher reflection scores when compared with postintervention students (3.91 ± 0.53 vs. 3.48 ± 0.51; P < 0.001). However, the historical control students were found to have significantly higher professionalism scores (P = 0.001) as compared with the intervention students. Student satisfaction was high, with 25 of 28 (89.2%) students reporting that the sessions should be included as a component of future anatomy courses. While reflection scores were not significantly increased as a result of the intervention, students expressed appreciation for the opportunity to discuss professionalism issues related to the dissection of cadavers. Additionally, the intervention students had both lower professionalism scores and lower reflection scores, which supports the idea that highly professional students are more capable of reflecting on professionalism. Future studies should determine whether this case discussion intervention improves objective measures of professionalism. Anat Sci Educ 7: 191–198. © 2013 American Association of Anatomists.

Improving professional attitudes and behaviors requires critical self reflection. Research on reflection is necessary to understand professionalism among medical students. The aims of this prospective validation study at the Mayo Medical School and Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine were: (1) to develop and validate a new instrument for measuring reflection on professionalism, and (2) determine whether learner variables are associated with reflection on the gross anatomy experience. An instrument for assessing reflections on gross anatomy, which was comprised of 12 items structured on five‐point scales, was developed. Factor analysis revealed a three‐dimensional model including low reflection (four items), moderate reflection (five items), and high reflection (three items). Item mean scores ranged from 3.05 to 4.50. The overall mean for all 12 items was 3.91 (SD = 0.52). Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α) was satisfactory for individual factors and overall (Factor 1 α = 0.78; Factor 2 α = 0.69; Factor 3 α = 0.70; Overall α = 0.75). Simple linear regression analysis indicated that reflection scores were negatively associated with teamwork peer scores ( P = 0.018). The authors report the first validated measurement of medical student reflection on professionalism in gross anatomy. Critical reflection is a recognized component of professionalism and may be important for behavior change. This instrument may be used in future research on professionalism among medical students. Anat Sci Educ 6: 232–238. © 2012 American Association of Anatomists.