RESUMEN

ABSTRACT: The Interprofessional Partnership to Advance Care and Education (iPACE) model was developed and implemented at Maine Medical Center in 2016 as part of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's Pursuing Excellence in Clinical Learning Environments (CLE) demonstration project. The model is based on the belief that, in optimal CLEs, residents are trained in team-based, interprofessional collaborative care and use clinical care experiences to innovate in the areas of patient safety and quality of care. The model's inclusion of systems engineering principles, such as design thinking, allows teams to design, customize, and iteratively improve their own iPACE model.The iPACE model was further developed and disseminated with support from an American Medical Association Reimagining Residency grant and from the MaineHealth health system's medical education and clinical leadership. iPACE started as a small pilot project on a single inpatient unit and has evolved to become the standard for inpatient team rounds at the bedside. iPACE has received positive feedback from patients, demonstrated benefits to care team members and resident education, and proven its value to the health system through sustained reductions in length of stay and cost of care metrics. The iPACE project has fulfilled MMC's original goal of intentionally redesigning its CLEs to expose residents to high-functioning interprofessional teams with the goal of improving patient care and safety. The model has shown direct learner benefits through increased faculty observation and improved quality of feedback. Interprofessional bedside rounding models like iPACE have the potential to imprint learners with the skills and behaviors essential to provide collaborative patient-centered care. Strategies exist that improve resident and faculty engagement in bedside rounding models like iPACE and should be employed to encourage teaching and learning at the bedside.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Obtaining high quality feedback in residency education is challenging, in part due to limited opportunities for faculty observation of authentic clinical work. This study reviewed the impact of interprofessional bedside rounds ('iPACE™') on the length and quality of faculty narrative evaluations of residents as compared to usual inpatient teaching rounds. METHODS: Narrative comments from faculty evaluations of Internal Medicine (IM) residents both on usual teaching service as well as the iPACE™ service (spanning 2017-2020) were reviewed and coded using a deductive content analysis approach. RESULTS: Six hundred ninety-two narrative evaluations by 63 attendings of 103 residents were included. Evaluations of iPACE™ residents were significantly longer than those of residents on usual teams (109 vs. 69 words, p < 0.001). iPACE™ evaluations contained a higher average occurrence of direct observations of patient/family interactions (0.72 vs. 0.32, p < 0.001), references to interprofessionalism (0.17 vs. 0.05, p < 0.001), as well as specific (3.21 vs. 2.26, p < 0.001), actionable (1.01 vs. 0.69, p < 0.001), and corrective feedback (1.2 vs. 0.88, p = 0.001) per evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the iPACE™ model, which prioritizes interprofessional bedside rounds, had a positive impact on the quantity and quality of feedback, as measured via narrative comments on weekly evaluations.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In 2016, Maine Medical Center received an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Pursuing Excellence in Innovation grant to redesign the clinical learning environment to promote interprofessional care and education. The Interprofessional Partnership to Advance Care and Education (iPACE) model was developed and piloted on an adult inpatient medicine unit as an attempt achieve these aims. OBJECTIVE: We describe the iPACE model and associated outcomes. METHODS: Surveys and focus groups were employed as part of a multimethod pragmatic observational strategy. Team surveys included relational coordination (RC): a validated proprietary measure of interpersonal communication and relationships within teams. Pre-iPACE respondents were a representative historical sample from comparable inpatient medical units surveyed from March to April 2017. iPACE respondents were model participants surveyed March to August 2018 to allow for adequate sample size. RESULTS: Surveys were administered to pre-iPACE (N = 113, response rate 74%) and iPACE (N = 32, 54%) teams. Summary RC scores were significantly higher for iPACE respondents (iPACE 4.26 [SD 0.37] vs 3.72 [SD 0.44], P < .0001), and these respondents were also more likely to report a professionally rewarding experience (iPACE 4.4 [SD 0.6] vs 3.5 [SD 1.0], P < .0001). Learners felt the model was successful in teaching interprofessional best practices but were concerned it may hinder physician role development. Patient experience was positive. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot may have a positive effect on team functioning and team member professional experience and patient experience. Learner acceptance may be improved by increasing autonomy and preserving traditional learning venues.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Giving and receiving feedback that changes performance is influenced significantly by the clinical learning environment. This environment is multi-dimensional but includes both organizational and feedback specific dimensions. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this research were to investigate the relationship between residents' perceptions of residency program culture and feedback culture; and whether there were differences in resident perceptions of their programs' and feedback cultures based on their disciplines and institution. We hypothesized that residents preferred certain program culture types and that certain aspects of a residency program's culture were related to the feedback culture. DESIGN: Residents from six specialties at three institutions voluntarily completed two validated survey instruments (Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument [OCAI] and Feedback in Medical Education [FEEDME]-Culture survey) to assess the residency program and feedback cultures, respectively. Descriptive statistics were calculated and non-parametric tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 37.9% (116/306 residents). 'Clan' culture was both the current and preferred culture by 49.3% and 56.8%, respectively, of the residents overall. There were differences across programs with more current 'clan' culture in pediatrics than in surgery (P = 0.01). Multiple regression analysis showed the Hierarchy Now culture type was significantly related to the feedback culture mean score (p = <.01). For every one unit increase in the Hierarchy Now culture type, the FEEDME-Culture mean score decreases by 0.023 units. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study add to the literature by describing residents' preferences of their residency program's culture, and providing insights into the interplay between the residency program and feedback cultures.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the Maine Medical Center Graduate Medical Education Committee received an unprecedented number of requests (n = 18) to start new graduate medical education (GME) programs or expand existing programs. There was no process by which multiple programs could be prioritized to compete for scarce GME resources. OBJECTIVE: We developed a framework to strategically assess and prioritize GME program expansion requests to yield the greatest benefits for patients, learners, and the institution as well as to meet regional and societal priorities. METHODS: A systems engineering methodology called tradespace exploration was applied to a 6-step process to identify relevant categories and metrics. Programs' final scores were peer evaluated, and prioritization recommendations were made. Correlation analysis was used to evaluate the relevance of each category to final scores. Stakeholder feedback was solicited for process refinement. RESULTS: Five categories relevant to GME expansion were identified: institutional priorities, health care system priorities, regional and societal needs, program quality, and financial considerations. All categories, except program quality, correlated well with final scores (R 2 range 0.413-0.662). Three of 18 requested programs were recommended for funding. A stakeholder survey revealed that almost half of respondents (48%, 14 of 29) agreed that the process was unbiased and inclusive. Focus group feedback noted that the process had been rigorous and deliberate, although communication could have been improved. CONCLUSIONS: Applying a systems engineering approach to develop institution-specific metrics for assessing GME expansion requests provided a reproducible framework, allowing consideration of institutional, health care system, and regional societal needs, as well as program quality and funding considerations.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2016, we performed a scoping review as a means of mapping what is known in the literature about feedback to medical learners. In this descriptive analysis, we explore a subset of the results to assess the contributions of predominantly North American family medicine educators to the feedback literature. METHODS: Nineteen articles extracted from our original scoping review plus six articles identified from an additional search of the journal Family Medicine are described in-depth. RESULTS: The proportion of articles involving family medicine educators identified in our scoping review is small (n=19/650, 3%) and the total remains low (25) after including additional articles (n=6) from a Family Medicine search. They encompass a broad range of feedback methods and content areas. They primarily originated in the United States (n=19) and Canada (n=3) within Family Medicine Departments (n=20) and encompass a variety of scientific and educational research methodologies. CONCLUSIONS: The contributions of predominantly North American Family Medicine educators to the literature on feedback to learners are sparse in number and employ a variety of focus areas and methodological approaches. More studies are needed to assess for areas of education research where family physicians could make valuable contributions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Construct: Medical educators consider feedback a core component of the educational process. Effective feedback allows learners to acquire new skills, knowledge, and attitudes. Learners' perceptions of feedback are an important aspect to assess with valid methods in order to improve the feedback skills of educators and the feedback culture. BACKGROUND: Although guidelines for delivering effective feedback have existed for several decades, medical students and residents often indicate that they receive little feedback. A recent scoping review on feedback in medical education did not reveal any validity evidence on instruments to assess learner's perceptions of feedback. The purpose of our study was to gather validity evidence on two novel FEEDME (Feedback in Medical Education) instruments to assess medical students' and residents' perceptions of the feedback that they receive. APPROACH: After the authors developed an initial instrument with 54 items, cognitive interviews with medical students and residents suggested that 2 separate instruments were needed, one focused on the feedback culture (FEEDME-Culture) and the other on the provider of feedback (FEEDME-Provider). A Delphi study with 17 medical education experts and faculty members assessed content validity. The response process was explored involving 31 medical students and residents at 2 academic institutions. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analyses were performed on completed instruments. RESULTS: Two Delphi consultation rounds refined the wording of items and eliminated several items. Learners found both instruments easy and quick to answer; it took them less than 5 minutes to complete. Learners preferred an electronic format of the instruments over paper. Factor analysis revealed a two- and three-factor solution for the FEEDME-Culture and FEEDME-Provider instruments, respectively. Cronbach's alpha was greater than 0.80 for all factors. Items on both instruments were moderately to highly correlated (range, r = .3-.7). CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide preliminary validity evidence of 2 novel feedback instruments. After further validation of both FEEDME instruments, sharing the results of the FEEDME-Culture instrument with educational leaders and faculty may improve the culture of feedback on specific educational rotations and at the institutional level. The FEEDME-Provider instrument could be useful for faculty development targeting feedback skills. Additional research studies could assess whether both instruments may be used to help learners receive feedback and prompt reflective learning.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To conduct an integrative review and analysis of the literature on the content of feedback to learners in medical education. METHOD: Following completion of a scoping review in 2016, the authors analyzed a subset of articles published through 2015 describing the analysis of feedback exchange content in various contexts: audiotapes, clinical examination, feedback cards, multisource feedback, videotapes, and written feedback. Two reviewers extracted data from these articles and identified common themes. RESULTS: Of the 51 included articles, about half (49%) were published since 2011. Most involved medical students (43%) or residents (43%). A leniency bias was noted in many (37%), as there was frequently reluctance to provide constructive feedback. More than one-quarter (29%) indicated the feedback was low in quality (e.g., too general, limited amount, no action plans). Some (16%) indicated faculty dominated conversations, did not use feedback forms appropriately, or provided inadequate feedback, even after training. Multiple feedback tools were used, with some articles (14%) describing varying degrees of use, completion, or legibility. Some articles (14%) noted the impact of the gender of the feedback provider or learner. CONCLUSIONS: The findings reveal that the exchange of feedback is troubled by low-quality feedback, leniency bias, faculty deficient in feedback competencies, challenges with multiple feedback tools, and gender impacts. Using the tango dance form as a metaphor for this dynamic partnership, the authors recommend ways to improve feedback for teachers and learners willing to partner with each other and engage in the complexities of the feedback exchange.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To investigate the association of medical learner feedback with patient management and outcomes. METHODS: The authors investigated 27 articles that utilized patient data or chart reviews as a subset of a prior feedback scoping review. Data extraction was completed by two authors and all authors reviewed the descriptive data analysis. RESULTS: The studies were predominantly short-term investigations conducted in the US at academic teaching hospitals (89%) with one medical discipline (78%), most commonly internal medicine (56%). Patient-related outcomes primarily involved improved documentation (26%) and adherence to practice guidelines (19%) and were mostly measured through chart reviews (56%) or direct observation (15%). The primary method of feedback delivery involved a written format (30%). The majority of the studies showed a positive effect of feedback on the patient-oriented study outcomes (82%), although most involved a non-rigorous study design. CONCLUSIONS: Published studies focusing on the relationship between medical learner feedback and patient care are sparse. Most involve a single discipline at a single institution and are of a non-rigorous design. Measurements of improved patient outcomes are restricted to changes in management, procedures and documentation. Well-designed studies that directly link learner feedback to patient outcomes may help to support the use of feedback in teaching clinical outcomes improvement in alignment with competency-based milestones.

RESUMEN

Residency program directors (PDs) play an important role in establishing and leading high-quality graduate medical education programs. However, medical educators have failed to codify the position on a national level, and PDs are often not recognized for the significant role they play. The authors of this Commentary argue that the core entrustable professional activities (EPAs) framework may be a mechanism to further this work and define the roles and responsibilities of the PD position. Based on personal observations as PDs and communications with others in the academic medicine community, the authors used work in competency-based medical education to define a list of potential EPAs for PDs. The benefits of developing these EPAs include being able to define competencies for PDs using a deconstructive process, highlighting the increasingly important role PDs play in leading high-quality graduate medical education programs, using EPAs as a framework to assess PD performance and provide feedback, allowing PDs to focus their professional development efforts on the most important areas for their work, and helping guide the PD recruitment and selection processes.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To conduct a scoping review of the literature on feedback for learners in medical education. METHOD: In 2015-2016, the authors searched the Ovid MEDLINE, ERIC, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Web of Science, and Scopus databases and seven medical education journals (via OvidSP) for articles published January 1980-December 2015. Two reviewers screened articles for eligibility with inclusion criteria. All authors extracted key data and analyzed data descriptively. RESULTS: The authors included 650 articles in the review. More than half (n = 341) were published during 2010-2015. Many centered on medical students (n = 274) or residents (n = 192); some included learners from other disciplines (n = 57). Most (n = 633) described methods used for giving feedback; some (n = 95) described opinions and recommendations regarding feedback. Few studies assessed approaches to feedback with randomized, educational trials (n = 49) or described changes in learner behavior after feedback (n = 49). Even fewer assessed the impact of feedback on patient outcomes (n = 28). CONCLUSIONS: Feedback is considered an important means of improving learner performance, as evidenced by the number of articles outlining recommendations for feedback approaches. The literature on feedback for learners in medical education is broad, fairly recent, and generally describes new or altered curricular approaches that involve feedback for learners. High-quality, evidence-based recommendations for feedback are lacking. In addition to highlighting calls to reassess the concepts and complex nature of feedback interactions, the authors identify several areas that require further investigation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A new organizational model of educational administrative support was instituted in the Department of Medical Education (DME) to better meet increasing national accreditation demands. Residency and fellowship programs were organized into four 'Communities of Practice' (CoOPs) based on discipline similarity, number of learners, and geographic location. Program coordinator reporting lines were shifted from individual departments to a centralized reporting structure within the DME. The goal of this project was to assess the impact on those most affected by the change. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study that utilized structured interviews and the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI). Eleven members of the newly formed CoOPs participated in the study. RESULTS: Three major themes emerged after review and coding of the interview transcripts: improved group identity, improved availability of resources, and increased opportunity for professional growth. OCAI results indicated that respondents are committed to the DME and perceived the culture to be empowering. The 'preferred culture' was very similar to the culture at the time of the study, with some indication that DME employees are ready for more creativity and innovation in the future. CONCLUSION: Reorganization within the DME of residency programs into CoOPs was overwhelmingly perceived as a positive change. Improved resources and accountability may position our DME to better handle the increasing complexity of graduate medical education.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Although many residency programs are instituting quality improvement (QI) curricula in response to both institutional and external mandates, there are few reports of successful integration of resident initiated projects into these QI curricula with documented impact on health care processes and measures. INTERVENTION: We introduced a multifaceted curriculum into an Obstetrics-Gynecology continuity clinic. Following a needs assessment, we developed a didactic session to introduce residents to QI tools and the how to of a mentored resident-initiated project. Resident projects were presented to peers and faculty and were evaluated. A postgraduation survey assessed residents' satisfaction with the curriculum and preparedness for involvement in QI initiatives after residency. We also assessed whether this resulted in sustained improvement in health care measures. RESULTS: The curriculum was presented to 7 classes of residents (n  =  25) and 17 resident initiated projects have been completed. Twenty-one residents (84%) completed the preintervention survey and 12 of 17 (71%) residents who completed the entire curriculum completed the postintervention survey. Sustained change in surrogate health measures was documented for 4 projects focused on improving clinical measures, and improvement in clinical systems was sustained in 9 of the remaining 13 projects (69%). Most of the respondents (75%, n  =  9) agreed or strongly agreed that the projects done in residency provided a helpful foundation to their current QI efforts. CONCLUSION: This project successfully demonstrates that a multifaceted program in QI education can be implemented in a busy Obstetrics-Gynecology residency program, resulting in sustained improvement in surrogate health measures and in clinical systems. A longitudinal model for resident projects results in an opportunity for reflection, project revision, and a maintenance plan for continued clinical impact.