Factors related to publication success among faculty development fellowship graduates.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study's purpose was to understand factors related to scholarly project publication among fellowship graduates and to explore the role of collegial relationships and institutional characteristics on ever having published and number of publications. METHODS: We surveyed 5 years of graduates (2000-2004) from the Michigan State University Faculty Development Fellowship Program (n=90) via e-mail. The survey instrument included questions about barriers and facilitators, colleague relationships, and aspects of their institutional environment, the latter adapted from a validated survey by Bland et al. RESULTS: The response rate was 70%. Only seven graduates had published the results of their fellowship project; 44% had published at least one paper. Barriers to publishing scholarly project results included lack of time and assistance, inability to finish projects, and rejection of a submitted paper. Factors associated with publication included types of collegial relationships and a number of institutional factors in addition to the Bland score. CONCLUSIONS: Few of our fellowship graduates published the results of their scholarly project, and less than half published papers. We identified multiple barriers and facilitators that could be addressed by the fellowship programs and home institutions to enhance publication success.

Using a formative simulated patient exercise for curriculum evaluation.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear that teaching specific history taking, physical examination and patient teaching techniques to medical students results in durable behavioural changes. We used a quasi-experimental design that approximated a randomized double blinded trial to examine whether a Participatory Decision-Making (PDM) educational module taught in a clerkship improves performance on a Simulated Patient Exercise (SPE) in another clerkship, and how this is influenced by the time between training and assessment. METHODS: Third year medical students in an internal medicine clerkship were assessed on their use of PDM skills in an SPE conducted in the second week of the clerkship. The rotational structure of the third year clerkships formed a pseudo-randomized design where students had 1) completed the family practice clerkship containing a training module on PDM skills approximately four weeks prior to the SPE, 2) completed the family medicine clerkship and the training module approximately 12 weeks prior to the SPE or 3) had not completed the family medicine clerkship and the PDM training module at the time they were assessed via the SPE. RESULTS: Based on limited pilot data there were statistically significant differences between students who received PDM training approximately four weeks prior to the SPE and students who received training approximately 12 weeks prior to the SPE. Students who received training 12 weeks prior to the SPE performed better than those who received training four weeks prior to the SPE. In a second comparison students who received training four weeks prior to the SPE performed better than those who did not receive training but the differences narrowly missed statistical significance (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of a methodology for conducting rigorous curricular evaluations using natural experiments based on the structure of clinical rotations. In addition, it provided preliminary data suggesting targeted educational interventions can result in marked improvements in the clinical skills spontaneously exhibited by physician trainees in a setting different from which the skills were taught.

Medical students, clinical preventive services, and shared decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: Improving access to preventive care requires addressing patient, provider, and systems barriers. Patients often lack knowledge or are skeptical about the importance of prevention. Physicians feel that they have too little time, are not trained to deliver preventive services, and are concerned about the effectiveness of prevention. We have implemented an educational module in the required family practice clerkship (1) to enhance medical student learning about common clinical preventive services and (2) to teach students how to inform and involve patients in shared decision making about those services. DESCRIPTION: Students are asked to examine available evidence-based information for preventive screening services. They are encouraged to look at the recommendations of various organizations and use such resources as reports from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to determine recommendations they want to be knowledgeable about in talking with their patients. For learning shared decision making, students are trained to use a model adapted from Braddock and colleagues(1) to discuss specific screening services and to engage patients in the process of making informed decisions about what is best for their own health. The shared decision making is presented and modeled by faculty, discussed in small groups, and students practice using Web-based cases and simulations. The students are evaluated using formative and summative performance-based assessments as they interact with simulated patients about (1) screening for high blood cholesterol and other lipid abnormalities, (2) screening for colorectal cancer, (3) screening for prostate cancer, and (4) screening for breast cancer. The final student evaluation is a ten-minute, videotaped discussion with a simulated patient about screening for colorectal cancer that is graded against a checklist that focuses primarily on the elements of shared decision making. DISCUSSION: Our medical students appear quite willing to accept shared decision making as a skill that they should have in working with patients, and this was the primary focus of the newly implemented module. However, we have learned that students need to deepen their understanding of screening services in order to help patients understand the associated benefits and risks. The final videotaped interaction with a simulated patient about colorectal cancer screening has been very helpful in making it more obvious to faculty what students believe and know about screening for colorectal cancer. As the students are asked to discuss clinical issues with patients and discuss the pros and cons of screening tests as part of the shared decision-making process, their thinking becomes transparent and it is evident where curricular changes and enhancements are required. We have found that an explicit model that allows students to demonstrate a process for shared decision making is a good introductory tool. We think it would be helpful to provide students with more formative feedback. We would like to develop faculty development programs around shared decision making so that more of our clinical faculty would model such a process with patients. Performance-based assessments are resource-intensive, but they appear to be worth the added effort in terms of enhanced skills development and a more comprehensive appraisal of student learning.