Promoting Inclusion, Diversity, Access, and Equity Through Enhanced Institutional Culture and Climate.

Advancing the health of all members of the global community remains core to the mission of the infectious diseases profession. Training, research, healthcare-delivery, and other infectious diseases-related institutions play a central role in meeting this goal. The promotion of inclusion, diversity, access, and equity (IDA&E) is critical to harnessing the full range of human creativity, innovation, and talent necessary to realizing the education, research, patient care, and service missions that constitute the principal objectives of such institutions. Strong and positive institutional cultures and climates are essential to achieving these IDA&E goals. We discuss opportunity gaps that exist in leveraging institutional culture and climate to optimize IDA&E. We further identify effective strategies to address these gaps and achieve excellence in education, research, patient care, and service in infectious diseases and the broader healthcare and biomedical space. We discuss the importance of both local and global context in conceptualizing IDA&E to best achieve these aims.

Teaching pre-clinical medical students an integrated approach to medical interviewing: half-day workshops using actors.

Teaching medical students to integrate patient-centered skills into the medical interview is challenging. Longitudinal training requires significant curricular and faculty time. Unsupervised students risk harm if they uncover and inappropriately manage psychosocial issues in actual patients. They fear saying the wrong thing in emotionally charged situations. Two half-day workshops for pre-clinical students integrate patient- and physician-centered interviewing. The first occurs early in the first year. The second, late in the second year, presents interview challenges (e.g., breaking bad news). Ten professional actors portray standardized patients (SPs). Groups of 10 to 15 students interview an SP, each eliciting a part of the patient's story. Qualitative evaluation revealed that, for many students, SPs afford the opportunity to experiment without harming real patients. Students view the workshops as effective (mean score for first-year students, 6.6 [standard deviation (SD), 1.0], second-year students, 7.1 [SD, 0.7] on a Likert-type scale: 1 = not at all effective to 8 = very effective).