Knoebel, Erin

Objective This survey study assessed trainee attitudes and perceptions of the longitudinal public speaking curriculum at Mayo Clinic Pediatric and Adolescent Residency Program. Methods This 3-part survey of Mayo Clinic pediatric residents was conducted from 2013 to 2017 and utilized yes/no questions, Likert scales, and open-ended questions. Code book content analysis was used to analyze open-ended questions. Results A total of 121 participants (96.8%, n = 121/125) completed the survey. Most respondents (93.3%, n = 111/119) either agreed or strongly agreed that the public speaking requirement enabled them to be more effective in delivering information to large groups. Most respondents (89.2%, n = 107/120) agreed or strongly agreed that they incorporated feedback from previous public speaking feedback sessions into subsequent presentations. The 2 activities that respondents found most useful for preparing later presentations were setting goals for future presentations in a feedback session and discussing performance in a feedback session. Conclusions There was a perceived effectiveness of a longitudinal public speaking curriculum among pediatric residents at our program. Multidimensional feedback seems to be a critical aspect of a public speaking curriculum in graduate medical education.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE Patient- and family-centered rounds (PFCR) have become a pediatric standard of care. However, rounds experiences of families using languages other than English (LOE)—particularly languages other than English or Spanish (LOES; eg, Arabic)—receive less focus. We aimed to identify differences in PFCR communication and engagement by language. METHODS We analyzed postintervention data from a 21-center structured PFCR study, assessing communication practices, quality, and family and nurse engagement during PFCR. Logistic regression adjusted by site compared PFCR between families using (1) LOE vs English, (2) Spanish vs English, and (3) LOES vs English. RESULTS Among 3051 PFCR encounters, 348 (11.4%) involved LOE (Spanish = 260; LOES = 85). Interpretation was not used in 7.2%, 5.8%, and 9.4% of encounters using LOE, Spanish, and LOES, respectively. PFCR in the following groups had lower adjusted odds (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI]) for the following domains: (1) LOE vs English: including providing verbal patient summaries (0.66 [0.46–0.95]), explaining diagnoses and differentials (0.62 [0.44–0.88]), family engagement (0.34 [0.20–0.57]), nursing inclusion (0.75 [0.60–0.93]), and nursing engagement (0.69 [0.52–0.90]). (2) Spanish vs English: diagnoses/differentials being explained (0.56 [0.37–0.85]), family engagement (0.35 [0.18–0.67]), nursing inclusion (0.77 [0.59–1.00]), and nursing engagement (0.68 [0.52–0.89]). (3) LOES vs English: families sharing concerns (0.66 [0.47–0.93]), family engagement (0.30 [0.16–0.54]), and nursing inclusion (0.74 [0.55–0.99]). CONCLUSION Even after implementing a PFCR intervention, families using LOE—especially LOES—experienced significant disparities in communication and engagement. Future approaches to improving PFCR should emphasize language access and promote nurse and family engagement for families using LOE, particularly LOES.