Exploring Medical Student Learning Needs in the Pediatric Emergency Department: "What Do You Want to Learn Right Now?".

BACKGROUND: When precepting medical students in the emergency department, faculty physicians often have only minutes per patient encounter to devote to direct teaching. Instructional strategies that promote independent student learning after each case may have merit. It is not known, however, to what degree patient-triggered learning needs are amenable to independent study. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to determine self- and faculty-reported learner needs at the time of patient encounters and to assess the degree to which these perceived needs may be satisfied by independent study. METHODS: We interviewed medical students and faculty in our pediatric emergency department. Immediately before or after they saw a patient, we asked "What do you want to learn right now?". For half of the student interviews, we separately asked the same questions of their preceptors. Interviews were taped and transcribed. Responses were coded by 3 investigators who did content analysis to identify dominant themes and the extent to which the learning need could be addressed independently. Investigators agreed that Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competency domains could be used to classify the responses. RESULTS: We interviewed 82 students and 44 preceptors yielding 126 patient-triggered learning needs. Competency area(s) were medical knowledge (70), patient care (1), interpersonal skills (27), systems-based practice (2), practice-based learning (3), and professionalism (4). Two raters independently assigned the same competency in 89%. Medical knowledge competency learning needs were almost all at least moderately amenable to independent learning (68/70, 98%), but the other competencies were not (22/57, 39%) according to the raters (interrater reliability, 0.7). Preceptor responses were congruent in competency type with students' responses in 29 (67%) of 43. Students listed interpersonal skills deficits far more often than did faculty (24% vs 5%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Most student learning needs in the pediatric emergency department focus on medical knowledge. These deficits could be amenable to structured independent study at the point of care.

Formation of spatial thinking skills through different training methods.

Spatial training can be durable and transferable if the training involves cognitive process-based tasks. The current study explored different spatial training methods and investigated the sequences of process-based mental simulation that was facilitated by various structures of external spatial representation, 3D technology, spatial cues, and/or technical languages. A total of 115 Columbia University's students were conducted through three experiments using a between-subjects design to examine the effects of spatial training methods on spatial ability performance. The conditions for training environments included 3D-virtual and 3D-physical interactions with abstract (nonsense-geometric) and concrete (everyday-object) contents. Overall, learners in the treatment conditions improved in their spatial skills significantly more than those in the control conditions. Particularly, 3D-direct-manipulation conditions in the third experiment added promising results about the specific sequences during spatial thinking formation processes.

Reinforcing outpatient medical student learning using brief computer tutorials: the Patient-Teacher-Tutorial sequence.

BACKGROUND: At present, what students read after an outpatient encounter is largely left up to them. Our objective was to evaluate the education efficacy of a clinical education model in which the student moves through a sequence that includes immediately reinforcing their learning using a specifically designed computer tutorial. METHODS: Prior to a 14-day Pediatric Emergency rotation, medical students completed pre-tests for two common pediatric topics: Oral Rehydration Solutions (ORS) and Fever Without Source (FWS). After encountering a patient with either FWS or a patient needing ORS, the student logged into a computer that randomly assigned them to either a) completing a relevant computer tutorial (e.g. FWS patient + FWS tutorial = "in sequence") or b) completing the non-relevant tutorial (e.g. FWS patient + ORS tutorial = "out of sequence"). At the end of their rotation, they were tested again on both topics. Our main outcome was post-test scores on a given tutorial topic, contrasted by whether done in- or out-of-sequence. RESULTS: Ninety-two students completed the study protocol with 41 in the 'in sequence' group. Pre-test scores did not differ significantly. Overall, doing a computer tutorial in sequence resulted in significantly greater post-test scores (z-score 1.1 (SD 0.70) in sequence vs. 0.52 (1.1) out-of-sequence; 95% CI for difference +0.16, +0.93). Students spent longer on the tutorials when they were done in sequence (12.1 min (SD 7.3) vs. 10.5 (6.5)) though the difference was not statistically significant (95% CI diff: -1.2 min, +4.5). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient learning frameworks could be structured to take best advantage of the heightened learning potential created by patient encounters. We propose the Patient-Teacher-Tutorial sequence as a framework for organizing learning in outpatient clinical settings.