Reed, Darcy A.

BACKGROUNDPrior studies suggest that high workload among attending physicians may be associated with reduced teaching effectiveness and poor patient outcomes, but these relationships have not been investigated using objective measures of workload and safety.OBJECTIVETo examine associations between attending workload, teaching effectiveness, and patient safety, hypothesizing that higher workload would be associated with lower teaching effectiveness and negative patient outcomes.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSWe conducted a retrospective study of 69,386 teaching evaluation items submitted by 543 internal medicine residents for 107 attending physicians who supervised inpatient teaching services from July 2, 2005 to July 1, 2011.MEASUREMENTSAttending workload measures included hospital service census, patient length of stay, daily admissions, daily discharges, and concurrent outpatient duties. Teaching effectiveness was measured using residents' evaluations of attendings. Patient outcomes considered were applicable patient safety indicators (PSIs), intensive care unit transfers, cardiopulmonary resuscitation/rapid response team calls, and patient deaths. Mixed linear models and generalized linear regression models were used for statistical analysis.RESULTSWorkload measures of midnight census and daily discharges were associated with lower teaching evaluation scores (both β = −0.026, P < 0.0001). The number of daily admissions was associated with higher teaching scores (β = 0.021, P = 0.001) and increased PSIs (odds ratio = 1.81, P = 0.0001).CONCLUSIONSeveral measures of attending physician workload were associated with slightly lower teaching effectiveness, and patient safety may be compromised when teams are managing new admissions. Ongoing efforts by residency programs to optimize the learning environment should include strategies to manage the workload of supervising attendings. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:169–173. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine

Purpose To summarize characteristics and validity evidence of tools that assess teamwork in undergraduate medical education (UME), and provide recommendations for addressing the interprofessional collaboration competencies of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Method The authors conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from January 1, 1979, through April 1, 2014; they searched reference lists and national meeting abstracts. They included original research reports that described a quantitative tool used to assess teamwork in UME. They abstracted characteristics and validity evidence for the tools, plus study quality, according to established frameworks. Two authors independently abstracted 25% of articles and calculated agreement. Authors then applied predefined criteria to identify tools best suited to address the AAMC’s teamwork competencies. Results Of 13,549 citations, 70 articles describing 64 teamwork assessment tools were included. Of these 64 tools, 27 (42%) assessed teamwork in classroom, 31 (48%) in simulation, and only 7 (11%) in actual clinical settings. The majority (47; 73%) of tools assessed medical students’ teamwork in interprofessional teams. On the basis of content concordance, strength of validity evidence, generalizability of scores, and level of outcomes, four published tools were recommended to assess the AAMC’s teamwork competencies: the Collaborative Healthcare Interdisciplinary Relationship Planning Scale, Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale, Communication and Teamwork Skills assessment, and Teamwork Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise. Conclusions Substantial validity evidence supports the use of several UME teamwork assessments. Four tools have been appropriately designed and sufficiently studied to constitute appropriate assessments of the AAMC’s teamwork competencies.

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.