Listen Before You Auscultate: An Active-Learning Approach to Bedside Cardiac Assessment.

Introduction: Bedside cardiac assessment (BCA) is deficient across a spectrum of noncardiology trainees. Learners not taught BCA well may become instructors who do not teach well, creating a self-perpetuating problem. To improve BCA teaching and learning, we developed a high-quality, patient-centered curriculum for medicine clerkship students that could be flexibly implemented and accessible to other health professions learners. Methods: With a constructivist perspective, we aligned learning goals, activities, and assessments. The curriculum used a "listen before you auscultate" framework, capturing patient history as context for a six-step, systematic approach. In the flipped classroom, short videos and practice questions preceded two 1-hour class activities that integrated diagnostic reasoning, pathophysiology, physical diagnosis, and reflection. Activities included case discussions, jugular venous pressure evaluation, heart sound competitions, and simulated conversations with patients. Two hundred sixty-eight students at four US and international medical schools participated. We incorporated feedback, performed thematic analysis, and assessed learners' confidence and knowledge. Results: Low posttest data capture limited quantitative results. Students reported increased confidence in BCA ability. Knowledge increased in both BCA and control groups. Thematic analysis suggested instructional design strategies were effective and peer encounters, skills practice, and encounters with educators were meaningful. Discussion: The curriculum supported active learning of day-to-day clinical competencies and promoted professional identity formation alongside BCA ability. Feedback and increased confidence on the late-clerkship posttest suggested durable learning. We recommend approaches to confirm this and other elements of knowledge, skill acquisition, or behaviors and are surveying impacts on professional identity formation-related constructs.

Decoding laboratory test names: a major challenge to appropriate patient care.

Clinical laboratory tests have no value if clinicians cannot quickly order and obtain the results they need. We found that efforts to obtain even the most commonly ordered tests are often derailed by excessively complex nomenclature. Ordering the right laboratory tests is critical to diagnosis and treatment, but existing mechanisms for entering lab orders actively interfere with physicians' efforts to provide good clinical care. Rather than simplifying lab orders, the advent of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems-generally programmed by non-clinicians-has introduced new and vexing practical problems. Medical laboratories have filled their test menus, whether paper or electronic, with bewildering nomenclature and abbreviations, and have failed to appreciate the dangers of assigning perilously similar names to different tests. The efficient and efficacious patient care demanded by the quality care initiative requires progress beyond traditional solutions, such as convening naming conventions, to the development of innovative software with intelligent, real-time, clinically driven search functions that will allow these programs to help rather than hinder physicians.