Investigating feedback orientation in medical learners.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Feedback processes in health professions education (HPE) are not always successful. While recommendations to improve feedback provision dominate the literature, studying specific learner attributes that impact feedback uptake may also improve feedback processes. Feedback orientation is a concept from management science involving four dimensions of learner attributes and attitudes that impact their feedback uptake: utility, accountability, social awareness, and feedback self-efficacy. Feedback orientation may represent a valuable concept in HPE. We aimed to understand medical learners' feedback orientation at different stages in their development. METHODS: We used the Feedback Orientation Scale, a 20-item survey instrument, for a cross-sectional analysis of feedback orientation in medical students and Internal Medicine residents at one large academic center. We performed descriptive statistics and analysis of variance for data analysis. RESULTS: We found the same factors (dimensions) to feedback orientation in our population as in management science. Overall feedback orientation scores were high and were largely consistent across trainee levels. Utility was the domain that was highest across learners, whereas feedback self-efficacy was lowest. CONCLUSIONS: Feedback orientation represents a useful concept to explore medical learners' attitudes toward feedback's role in their development. The four domains can help guide further nuanced feedback research and application.[Box: see text].

Emotion in remediation: A scoping review of the medical education literature.

OBJECTIVES: Remediation can be crucial and high stakes for medical learners, and experts agree it is often not optimally conducted. Research from other fields indicates that explicit incorporation of emotion improves education because of emotion's documented impacts on learning. Because this could present an important opportunity for improving remediation, we aimed to investigate how the literature on remediation interventions in medical education discusses emotion. METHODS: The authors used Arksey and O'Malley's framework to conduct a scoping literature review of records describing remediation interventions in medical education, using PubMed, CINAHL Complete, ERIC, Web of Science and APA PsycInfo databases, including all English-language publications through 1 May 2020 meeting search criteria. They included publications discussing remediation interventions either empirically or theoretically, pertaining to physicians or physician trainees of any level. Two independent reviewers used a standardised data extraction form to report descriptive information; they reviewed included records for the presence of mentions of emotion, described the mentions and analysed results thematically. RESULTS: Of 1644 records, 199 met inclusion criteria and were reviewed in full. Of those, 112 (56%) mentioned emotion in some way; others focused solely on cognitive aspects of remediation. The mentions of emotion fell into three themes based on when the emotion was cited as present: during regular coursework or practice, upon referral for remediation and during remediation. One-quarter of records (50) indicated potential intentional incorporation of emotion into remediation programme design, but they were non-specific as to how emotions related to the learning process itself. CONCLUSION: Even though emotion is omnipresent in remediation, medical educators frequently do not factor emotion into the design of remediation approaches and rarely explicitly utilise emotion to improve the learning process. Applications from other fields may help medical educators leverage emotion to improve learning in remediation, including strategies to frame and design remediation.

Clerkship Grading Committees: the Impact of Group Decision-Making for Clerkship Grading.

BACKGROUND: Faculty and students debate the fairness and accuracy of medical student clerkship grades. Group decision-making is a potential strategy to improve grading. OBJECTIVE: To explore how one school's grading committee members integrate assessment data to inform grade decisions and to identify the committees' benefits and challenges. DESIGN: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with grading committee chairs and members conducted between November 2017 and March 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included the eight core clerkship directors, who chaired their grading committees. We randomly selected other committee members to invite, for a maximum of three interviews per clerkship. APPROACH: Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive content analysis. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 17 committee members. Within and across specialties, committee members had distinct approaches to prioritizing and synthesizing assessment data. Participants expressed concerns about the quality of assessments, necessitating careful scrutiny of language, assessor identity, and other contextual factors. Committee members were concerned about how unconscious bias might impact assessors, but they felt minimally impacted at the committee level. When committee members knew students personally, they felt tension about how to use the information appropriately. Participants described high agreement within their committees; debate was more common when site directors reviewed students' files from other sites prior to meeting. Participants reported multiple committee benefits including faculty development and fulfillment, as well as improved grading consistency, fairness, and transparency. Groupthink and a passive approach to bias emerged as the two main threats to optimal group decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Grading committee members view their practices as advantageous over individual grading, but they feel limited in their ability to address grading fairness and accuracy. Recommendations and support may help committees broaden their scope to address these aspirations.

Confidence with and Barriers to Serious Illness Communication: A National Survey of Hospitalists.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the concerns, confidence, and barriers of practicing hospitalists around serious illness communication. BACKGROUND: Hospitalist physicians are optimally positioned to provide primary palliative care, yet their experiences in serious illness communication are not well described. METHODS: Web-based survey, conducted in May 2016. The survey link was distributed via email to 4000 members of the Society of Hospital Medicine. The 39-item survey assessed frequency of concerns about serious illness communication, confidence for common tasks, and barriers using Likert-type scales. It was developed by the authors based on prior work, a focus group, and feedback from pilot respondents. RESULTS: We received 332 completed surveys. On most or every shift, many participants reported having concerns about a patient's or family's understanding of prognosis (53%) or the patient's code status (63%). Most participants were either confident or very confident in discussing goals of care (93%) and prognosis (87%). Fewer were confident or very confident in responding to patients or families who had not accepted the seriousness of an illness (59%) or in managing conflict (50%). Other frequently cited barriers were lack of time, lack of prior discussions in the outpatient setting, unrealistic prognostic expectations from other physicians, limited institutional support, and difficulty finding records of previous discussions. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest opportunities to improve hospitalists' ability to lead serious illness communication by increasing the time hospitalists have for discussions, improving documentation systems and communication between inpatient and outpatient clinicians, and targeted training on challenging communication scenarios.

Medical Student Training on Code Status Discussions: How Far Have We Come?

OBJECTIVES: It is unclear to what extent the recently increased focus on patient-provider education and patient-centered care has affected education on communication at the undergraduate medical education (UME) level. This study aimed to investigate graduating students' exposure to and comfort with techniques surrounding the code status discussion, an important and ubiquitous component of patient-provider communication. METHODS: We surveyed fourth-year medical students who had recently matched to our internal medicine residency program on their medical school experiences with code status discussions, self-confidence with these conversations, and desire for further education. RESULTS: We obtained surveys from 56 students from 32 medical schools (89% response rate). Students had varying experience observing and conducting code status discussions, infrequently received guidance or feedback on these discussions, and did not know guidelines for best practices surrounding the conversations. Despite reporting moderate self-confidence with these conversations, most felt they required at least partial supervision conducting these discussions; all requested further formal instruction. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased attention on the importance of physicians' communication with patients, including surrounding end-of-life care, students at many top medical schools continue to feel underprepared and underconfident to engage in code status discussions with their patients upon the start of residency.