Does Educational Handover Influence Subsequent Assessment?

PURPOSE: Educational handover (i.e., providing information about learners' past performance) is controversial. Proponents argue handover could help tailor learning opportunities. Opponents fear it could bias subsequent assessments and lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. This study examined whether raters provided with reports describing learners' minor weaknesses would generate different assessment scores or narrative comments than those who did not receive such reports. METHOD: In this 2018 mixed-methods, randomized, controlled, experimental study, clinical supervisors from 5 postgraduate (residency) programs were randomized into 3 groups receiving no educational handover (control), educational handover describing weaknesses in medical expertise, and educational handover describing weaknesses in communication. All participants watched the same videos of 2 simulated resident-patient encounters and assessed performance using a shortened mini-clinical evaluation exercise form. The authors compared mean scores, percentages of negative comments, comments focusing on medical expertise, and comments focusing on communication across experimental groups using analyses of variance. They examined potential moderating effects of supervisor experience, gender, and mindsets (fixed vs growth). RESULTS: Seventy-two supervisors participated. There was no effect of handover report on assessment scores (F(2, 69) = 0.31, P = .74) or percentage of negative comments (F(2, 60) = 0.33, P = .72). Participants who received a report indicating weaknesses in communication generated a higher percentage of comments on communication than the control group (63% vs 50%, P = .03). Participants who received a report indicating weaknesses in medical expertise generated a similar percentage of comments on expertise compared to the controls (46% vs 47%, P = .98). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial empirical data about the effects of educational handover and suggests it can-in some circumstances-lead to more targeted feedback without influencing scores. Further studies are required to examine the influence of reports for a variety of performance levels, areas of weakness, and learners.

Learner handover: Perspectives and recommendations from the front-line.

INTRODUCTION: Current medical education models increasingly rely on longitudinal assessments to document learner progress over time. This longitudinal focus has re-kindled discussion regarding learner handover-where assessments are shared across supervisors, rotations, and educational phases, to support learner growth and ease transitions. The authors explored the opinions of, experiences with, and recommendations for successful implementation of learner handover among clinical supervisors. METHODS: Clinical supervisors from five postgraduate medical education programs at one institution completed an online questionnaire exploring their views regarding learner handover, specifically: potential benefits, risks, and suggestions for implementation. Survey items included open-ended and numerical responses. The authors used an inductive content analysis approach to analyze the open-ended questionnaire responses, and descriptive and correlational analyses for numerical data. RESULTS: Seventy-two participants completed the questionnaire. Their perspectives varied widely. Suggested benefits of learner handover included tailored learning, improved assessments, and enhanced patient safety. The main reported risk was the potential for learner handover to bias supervisors' perceptions of learners, thereby affecting the validity of future assessments and influencing the learner's educational opportunities and well-being. Participants' suggestions for implementation focused on who should be involved, when and for whom it should occur, and the content that should be shared. DISCUSSION: The diverse opinions of, and recommendations for, learner handover highlight the necessity for handover to maximize learning potential while minimizing potential harms. Supervisors' suggestions for handover implementation reveal tensions between assessment-of and for-learning.

Silent Witnesses: Faculty Reluctance to Report Medical Students' Professionalism Lapses.

PURPOSE: Assessing students' professionalism is a critical component of medical education. Nonetheless, faculty reluctance to report professionalism lapses remains a significant barrier to the effective identification, management, and remediation of such lapses. The authors gathered information from faculty who supervise medical students to better understand their perceived barriers to reporting. METHOD: In 2015-2016, data were collected using a group concept mapping methodology, which is an innovative, asynchronous, structured mixed-methods approach using qualitative and quantitative measures to identify themes characterizing faculty reluctance to report professionalism lapses. Participants from four U.S. and Canadian medical schools brainstormed, sorted, and rated statements about perceived barriers to reporting. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses were used to analyze these data. RESULTS: Of 431 physicians invited, 184 con-tributed to the brainstorming task (42.7%), 48 completed the sorting task (11.1%), and 83 completed the rating task (19.3%). Participants identified six barriers or themes to reporting lapses. The themes "uncertainty about the process," "ambiguity about the 'facts,'" "effects on the learner," and "time constraints" were rated highest as perceived barriers. Demographic subgroup analysis by gender, years of experience supervising medical students, years since graduation, and practice discipline revealed no significant differences (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The decision to report medical students' professionalism lapses is more complex and nuanced than a binary choice to report or not. Faculty face challenges at the systems level and individual level. The themes identified in this study can be used for faculty development and to improve processes for reporting students' professionalism lapses.

How Do Medical Schools Identify and Remediate Professionalism Lapses in Medical Students? A Study of U.S. and Canadian Medical Schools.

PURPOSE: Teaching and assessing professionalism is an essential element of medical education, mandated by accrediting bodies. Responding to a call for comprehensive research on remediation of student professionalism lapses, the authors explored current medical school policies and practices. METHOD: In 2012-2013, key administrators at U.S. and Canadian medical schools accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education were interviewed via telephone or e-mail. The structured interview questionnaire contained open-ended and closed questions about practices for monitoring student professionalism, strategies for remediating lapses, and strengths and limitations of current systems. The authors employed a mixed-methods approach, using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis based on grounded theory. RESULTS: Ninety-three (60.8%) of 153 eligible schools participated. Most (74/93; 79.6%) had specific policies and processes regarding professionalism lapses. Student affairs deans and course/clerkship directors were typically responsible for remediation oversight. Approaches for identifying lapses included incident-based reporting and routine student evaluations. The most common remediation strategies reported by schools that had remediated lapses were mandated mental health evaluation (74/90; 82.2%), remediation assignments (66/90; 73.3%), and professionalism mentoring (66/90; 73.3%). System strengths included catching minor offenses early, emphasizing professionalism schoolwide, focusing on helping rather than punishing students, and assuring transparency and good communication. System weaknesses included reluctance to report (by students and faculty), lack of faculty training, unclear policies, and ineffective remediation. In addition, considerable variability in feedforward processes existed between schools. CONCLUSIONS: The identified strengths can be used in developing best practices until studies of the strategies' effectiveness are conducted.

Clinician investigator training in Canada: a review.

PURPOSE: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada undertook a review of its Clinician Investigator Program (CIP), 13 years after launching the program in response to shortages in clinical investigators. The primary study goals were to determine the outcomes, impact, strengths and weaknesses of CIP. METHODS: Focus groups and telephone interviews with current and past program directors (PD) and a detailed survey of current and former trainees were conducted. Thirteen PD and 45% of current and former trainees from 10 CIP participated. RESULTS: Since 1995, 12 CIP have been accredited and 553 residents have enrolled in CIP, with 194 completing CIP and residency training by 2008. PD recognized CIP as an excellent program that produces highly qualified clinical investigators; important for faculty renewal. Both trainees and PD identified the need to improve CIP funding. Most (84%) CIP trainees did not have prior graduate degrees. Most alumni had completed Masters (58%) or Doctoral (39%) programs during CIP and published on their CIP research (97%). Among alumni who completed CIP and residency, many obtained an academic appointment with protected time for research, with 39% receiving an external career award. Many (60%) alumni reported no drawbacks to CIP and recognized the added values included Royal College recognition, structured training, pursuit of graduate studies, integration of clinical/research training and enhanced mentorship. CONCLUSION: Since the progam's inception, the number of CIP in Canada has grown. CIP are recognized as important mechanisms for integrating clinical and research training during residency to produce highly qualified clinician investigators.

The CanMEDS initiative: implementing an outcomes-based framework of physician competencies.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes-based education in the health professions has emerged as a priority for curriculum planners striving to align with societal needs. However, many struggle with effective methods of implementing such an approach. In this narrative, we describe the lessons learned from the implementation of a national, needs-based, outcome-oriented, competency framework called the CanMEDS initiative of The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. METHODS: We developed a framework of physician competencies organized around seven physician "Roles": Medical Expert, Communicator, Collaborator, Manager, Health Advocate, Scholar, and Professional. A systematic implementation plan involved: the development of standards for curriculum and assessment, faculty development, educational research and resources, and outreach. LESSONS LEARNED: Implementing this competency framework has resulted in successes, challenges, resistance to change, and a list of essential ingredients for outcomes-based medical education. CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted implementation strategy has enabled this large-scale curriculum change for outcomes-based education.