What makes an article a must read in medical education?

BACKGROUND: The dissemination of published scholarship is intended to bring new evidence and ideas to a wide audience. However, the increasing number of articles makes it challenging to determine where to focus one's attention. This study describes factors that may influence decisions to read and recommend a medical education article. METHODS: Authors analyzed data collected from March 2021 through September 2022 during a monthly process to identify "Must Read" articles in medical education. An international team of health sciences educators, learners, and researchers voted on titles and abstracts to advance articles to full text review. Full texts were rated using five criteria: relevance, methodology, readability, originality, and whether it addressed a critical issue in medical education. At an end-of-month meeting, 3-4 articles were chosen by consensus as "Must Read" articles. Analyses were used to explore the associations of article characteristics and ratings with Must Read selection. RESULTS: Over a period of 19 months, 7487 articles from 856 journals were screened, 207 (2.8%) full texts were evaluated, and 62 (0.8%) were chosen as Must Reads. During screening, 3976 articles (53.1%) received no votes. BMC Medical Education had the largest number of articles at screening (n = 1181, 15.8%). Academic Medicine had the largest number as Must Reads (n = 22, 35.5%). In logistic regressions adjusting for the effect of individual reviewers, all rating criteria were independently associated with selection as a Must Read (p < 0.05), with methodology (OR 1.44 (95%CI = 1.23-1.69) and relevance (OR 1.43 (95%CI = 1.20-1.70)) having the highest odds ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of the published medical education articles did not appeal to a diverse group of potential readers; this represents a missed opportunity to make an impact and potentially wasted effort. Our findings suggest opportunities to enhance value in the production and dissemination of medical education scholarship.

Longitudinal resident coaching in the outpatient setting: A novel intervention to improve ambulatory consultation skills.

BACKGROUND: Direct observation with feedback to learners should be a mainstay in resident education, yet it is infrequently done and its impact on consultation skills has rarely been assessed. APPROACH: This project presents the framework and implementation of a longitudinal low-frequency, high-intensity direct observation and coaching intervention, and elaborates on insights learned. Internal medicine interns at one residency training program were randomized to an ambulatory coaching intervention or usual precepting. Over one year, coached interns had three complete primary care visits directly observed by a faculty clinician-coach who provided feedback informed by a behavior checklist. Immediately after each of the coached patient encounters, interns completed a structured self-assessment and coaches led a 30-minute feedback session informed by intern self-reflection and checklist items. Interns with usual precepting had two mini-CEX observations over the course of the year without other formal direct observation in the ambulatory setting. EVALUATION: As part of the post-intervention assessment, senior faculty members blinded to intervention and control group assignments evaluated videotaped encounters. Coached interns completed an average of 21/23 behaviors from the checklist, while interns from the control group completed 18 (p < 0.05). The median overall grade for coached interns was B+, compared to B-/C+ for controls (p < 0.05). REFLECTION: Coaching interns longitudinally using a behavior checklist is feasible and associated with improved consultation performance. Direct observation of complete clinical encounters followed by systematic coaching is educationally valuable, but time and resource intensive.

Coaching Residents in the Ambulatory Setting: Faculty Direct Observation and Resident Reflection.

BACKGROUND: Direct observation can be valuable for learners' skill development in graduate medical education, but it is done infrequently. Information on how to optimize trainee learning from, and best practices of, direct observation interventions in the ambulatory setting is limited. OBJECTIVE: We explored the impact of a focused outpatient direct observation and coaching intervention on internal medicine residents. METHODS: Using a behavior checklist based on tenets of clinical excellence, 2 faculty preceptors observed outpatient primary care visits with 96% (46 of 48) of the internal medicine residents in 2017. Residents self-assessed their performance after the visit using the same checklist. Next, a focused coaching feedback session, emphasizing reflection, was structured to highlight areas of discrepancy between resident self-assessment and coach observation (blind spots), and residents were asked to identify goals for practice improvement. RESULTS: Common blind spots in resident self-assessment related to collaborating with patients while using the electronic health record (48%, 21 of 44), hand washing (43%, 20 of 46), and asking thoughtful questions (40%, 18 of 45). At 1-month follow-up, 93% (43 of 46) of responding residents reported change in practice toward goals often or sometimes. All residents reported that the intervention felt comfortable, and 98% (45 of 46) noted that it helped them identify new behaviors to incorporate into clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Structured episodes of direct observation and coaching in the outpatient setting, with a behavior checklist, appear acceptable and useful for internal medicine residents' learning and development.

Glucose levels in the normal range predict incident diabetes in families with premature coronary heart disease.

PURPOSE: Little is known about excess risk of incident diabetes conferred by fasting plasma glucose (FPG) within the normal range (<5.6 mmol/l) for high risk families. METHODS: Healthy 30-59 year old non-diabetic siblings (N = 542) of index cases with documented premature coronary disease were followed prospectively for type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: During 8.7+/-3 years of follow-up, incident diabetes was identified in 7.8%. Rates were incremental with baseline non-diabetes FPG thresholds of 5.0, 5.6, 6.1, and 6.7 mmol/l (p for trend < 0.0001). FPG was the strongest predictor of incident diabetes even across levels within the normal range. The multivariable adjusted relative risk was 14.9 (95% CI = 3.4-65.2) at FPG thresholds > or =5.0 mmol/l versus FPG <5.0 mmol/l. The maximal diagnostic efficiency for FPG was 5.50 mmol/l; with sensitivity and specificity 0.782. All FPG thresholds in the normal range between 5.0 and 5.6 mmol/l showed efficiency levels >0.74. The overall area under the ROC curve predicting incident diabetes for normal and prediabetes ranges of FPG was 0.867. CONCLUSION: Higher FPG levels within the designated "normal" range in high risk families are a potent independent risk factor for type 2 diabetes and may serve as a sentinel to trigger primary preventive interventions.

Impact of a community-based multiple risk factor intervention on cardiovascular risk in black families with a history of premature coronary disease.

BACKGROUND: Black subjects with a family history of premature coronary heart disease (CHD) have a marked excess risk, yet barriers prevent effective risk reduction. We tested a community-based multiple risk factor intervention (community-based care [CBC]) and compared it with "enhanced" primary care (EPC) to reduce CHD risk in high-risk black families. METHODS AND RESULTS: Black 30- to 59-year-old siblings of a proband with CHD aged <60 years were randomized for care of BP > or =140/90 mm Hg, LDL cholesterol > or =3.37 mmol/L, or current smoking to EPC (n=168) or CBC (n=196) and monitored for 1 year. EPC and CBC were designed to eliminate barriers to care. The CBC group received care by a nurse practitioner and a community health worker in a community setting. The CBC group was 2 times more likely to achieve goal levels of LDL cholesterol and blood pressure compared with the EPC group (95% CI, 1.11 to 4.20 and 1.39 to 3.88, respectively) with adjustment for baseline levels of age, sex, education, and baseline use of medications. The CBC group demonstrated a significant reduction in global CHD risk, whereas no reduction was seen in the EPC group (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Eliminating known barriers may not be sufficient to reduce CHD risk in primary care settings. An alternative community care model that addresses barriers may be a more effective way to ameliorate CHD risk in high-risk black families.