Comparing Peer-Taught Student Tutors to Faculty-Taught Student Tutors in Educating Medical Students on Musculoskeletal Ultrasound.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, medical education has witnessed a shift in the integration of ultrasound into the preclinical years of medical school. Given the exponential increase in accessibility to ultrasound technology, students now have the opportunity to create peer learning groups in which ultrasound concepts can be taught from peer to peer, empowering students to work together to integrate ultrasound concepts early in their preclinical education. This project investigates the efficacy of peer-taught student tutors (PTSTs) in imparting the fundamentals of basic ultrasound techniques to first-year medical students in the setting of identifying and labeling upper extremity musculoskeletal (MSK) anatomy.  Methods: First-year medical students were instructed to identify volar forearm structures with an ultrasound probe. Students and instructors were given access to an ultrasound probe, ultrasound gel, an iPad, and a standardized patient. Students were taught either by an ultrasound instructor (UI) or PTST. After a hands-on demonstration by a UI or PTST, participating students were told to take screenshots and label their images as accurately as possible, identifying the aforementioned volar structures on a standardized patient without any feedback. The labeled screenshot images of volar structures were graded based on the ability to clearly visualize the intended structures.  Results: The results of this study compare the efficacy of PTSTs as educators of basic sonographic identification techniques with that of UI faculty members. A chi-square analysis was performed between the images obtained by the UI and PTST students, and there was no statistically significant difference in identification accuracy between the groups (p = 0.7538, 0.1977, 0.1812, 0.301). When using the Mann-Whitney U rank test, there remained no statistically significant difference between the accuracy of the students taught by STs compared to students taught by UIs (p = 0.7744, 0.09538, 0.07547, 0.1846). Another finding showed that students belonging to both teaching groups were generally not able to infer the pathology of volar wrist structures when given pathology identification questions regarding upper extremity ultrasound. Using chi-square with Yates correction, there is no sufficient evidence to justify an association between the ability to answer pathology-based ultrasound questions and instructor type (p = p = 0.6299, 0.8725). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the interpretation that the capability of first-year medical students to learn novice MSK sonographic identification is independent of whether the educator is a PTST or UI. This interpretation reveals a promising avenue toward the integration of the fundamentals of ultrasound identification early in medical education with little to no concern for the exhaustion of institutional resources. Along with the other well-documented benefits of the utilization of STs in medical school, a peer tutoring system centered on ultrasound skills designed in the way this study describes can be an effective, resource-sparing system that enhances medical students' sonographic capabilities early in their preclinical years.

Public Performance Metrics: Driving Physician Motivation and Performance.

INTRODUCTION: As providers transition from "fee-for-service" to "pay-for-performance" models, focus has shifted to improving performance. This trend extends to the emergency department (ED) where visits continue to increase across the United States. Our objective was to determine whether displaying public performance metrics of physician triage data could drive intangible motivators and improve triage performance in the ED. METHODS: This is a single institution, time-series performance study on a physician-in-triage system. Individual physician baseline metrics-number of patients triaged and dispositioned per shift-were obtained and prominently displayed with identifiable labels during each quarterly physician group meeting. Physicians were informed that metrics would be collected and displayed quarterly and that there would be no bonuses, punishments, or required training; physicians were essentially free to do as they wished. It was made explicit that the goal was to increase the number triaged, and while the number dispositioned would also be displayed, it would not be a focus, thereby acting as this study's control. At the end of one year, we analyzed metrics. RESULTS: The group's average number of patients triaged per shift were as follows: Q1-29.2; Q2-31.9; Q3-34.4; Q4-36.5 (Q1 vs Q4, p < 0.00001). The average numbers of patients dispositioned per shift were Q1-16.4; Q2-17.8; Q3-16.9; Q4-15.3 (Q1 vs Q4, p = 0.14). The top 25% of Q1 performers increased their average numbers triaged from Q1-36.5 to Q4-40.3 (ie, a statistically insignificant increase of 3.8 patients per shift [p = 0.07]). The bottom 25% of Q1 performers, on the other hand, increased their averages from Q1-22.4 to Q4-34.5 (ie, a statistically significant increase of 12.2 patients per shift [p = 0.0013]). CONCLUSION: Public performance metrics can drive intangible motivators (eg, purpose, mastery, and peer pressure), which can be an effective, low-cost strategy to improve individual performance, achieve institutional goals, and thrive in the pay-for-performance era.

Validity of Robot-Based Assessments of Upper Extremity Function.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of 5 robot-based assessments of arm motor function poststroke. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Outpatient clinical research center. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer sample of participants (N=40; age, >18y; 3-6mo poststroke) with arm motor deficits that had reached a stable plateau. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical standards included the arm motor domain of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and 5 secondary motor outcomes: hand/wrist subsection of the arm motor domain of the FMA, Action Research Arm Test, Box and Block test (BBT), hand motor subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale Version 2.0, and Barthel Index. Robot-based assessments included wrist targeting, finger targeting, finger movement speed, reaction time, and a robotic version of the BBT. Anatomical measures included percent injury to the corticospinal tract (CST) and extent of injury of the hand region of the primary motor cortex obtained from magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Participants had moderate to severe impairment (arm motor domain of the FMA scores, 35.6±14.4; range, 13.5-60). Performance on the robot-based tests, including speed (r=.82; P<.0001), wrist targeting (r=.72; P<.0001), and finger targeting (r=.67; P<.0001), correlated significantly with the arm motor domain of the FMA scores. Wrist targeting (r=.57-.82) and finger targeting (r=.49-.68) correlated significantly with all 5 secondary motor outcomes and with percent CST injury. The robotic version of the BBT correlated significantly with the clinical BBT but was less prone to floor effects. Robot-based assessments were comparable to the arm motor domain of the FMA score in relation to percent CST injury and superior in relation to extent of injury to the hand region of the primary motor cortex. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings support using a battery of robot-based methods for assessing the upper extremity motor function in participants with chronic stroke.