PURPOSE:Competency-based medical education (CBME) represents a shift to a paradigm with shared definitions, explicit outcomes, and assessments of competence. The groundwork has been laid to ensure all learners achieve the desired outcomes along the medical education continuum using the principles of CBME. However, this continuum spans the major transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education (GME) that is also evolving. This study explores the experiences of medical educators working to use CBME assessments in the context of the UME-GME transition and their perspectives on the existing challenges. METHOD:This study used a constructivist-oriented qualitative methodology. In-depth, semistructured interviews of UME and GME leaders in CBME were performed between February 2019 and January 2020 via Zoom. When possible, each interviewee was interviewed by 2 team members, one with UME and one with GME experience, which allowed follow-up questions to be pursued that reflected the perspectives of both UME and GME educators more fully. A multistep iterative process of thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcripts and identify patterns across interviews. RESULTS:The 9 interviewees represented a broad swath of UME and GME leadership positions, though most had an internal medicine training background. Analysis identified 4 overarching themes: mistrust (a trust chasm exists between UME and GME); misaligned goals (the residency selection process is antithetical to CBME); inadequate communication (communication regarding competence is infrequent, often unidirectional, and lacks a shared language); and inflexible timeframes (current training timeframes do not account for individual learners' competency trajectories). CONCLUSIONS:Despite the mutual desire and commitment to move to CBME across the continuum, mistrust, misaligned goals, inadequate communication, and inflexible timeframes confound such efforts of individual schools and programs. If current efforts to improve the UME-GME transition address the themes identified, educators may be more successful implementing CBME along the continuum.

PURPOSE:Collaborations between basic science educators (BE) and clinical educators (CE) in medical education are common and necessary to create integrated learning materials. However, few studies describe experiences of or processes used by educators engaged in interdisciplinary teamwork. We use the lens of boundary crossing to explore processes described by BE and CE that support the co-creation of integrated learning materials, and the impact that this work has on them. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We conducted qualitative content analysis on program evaluation data from 27 BE and CE who worked on 12 teams as part of a multi-institutional instructional design project. RESULTS:BE and CE productively engaged in collaboration using boundary crossing mechanisms. These included respecting diverse perspectives and expertise and finding efficient processes for completing shared work that allow BE and CE to build on each other's contributions. BE and CE developed confidence in connecting clinical concepts with causal explanations, and willingness to engage in and support such collaborations at their own institutions. CONCLUSIONS:BE and CE report the use of boundary crossing mechanisms that support collaboration in instructional design. Such practices could be harnessed in future collaborations between BE and CE.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Perspectives Viewpoints•An updated, revised national curriculum for core internal medicine clerkships was necessary to account for significant changes and advances in medicine and medical education.•Surveys of internal medicine clerkship directors determined the purposes as well as the content, structure, and format of the new curriculum.•An updated, easily modifiable national core curriculum for internal medicine clerkships is available online to assist clerkship directors and other curriculum developers in planning student education, aligning content with national assessments and competencies, and directing development of learning resources. •An updated, revised national curriculum for core internal medicine clerkships was necessary to account for significant changes and advances in medicine and medical education.•Surveys of internal medicine clerkship directors determined the purposes as well as the content, structure, and format of the new curriculum.•An updated, easily modifiable national core curriculum for internal medicine clerkships is available online to assist clerkship directors and other curriculum developers in planning student education, aligning content with national assessments and competencies, and directing development of learning resources.

Illness scripts describe the mental model used by experienced clinicians to store and recall condition-specific knowledge when making clinical decisions. Studies demonstrate that novice clinicians struggle to develop and apply strong illness scripts. We developed the Integrated Illness Script and Mechanism of Disease (IIS-MOD) map framework to address this challenge.

As medical educators continue to redefine learning and assessment across the continuum, implementation of competency-based medical education in the undergraduate setting has become a focus of many medical schools. While standards of competency have been defined for the graduating student, there is no uniform approach for defining competency expectations for students during their core clerkship year. The authors describe the process by which an Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine task force developed a paradigm for competency-based assessment of students during their inpatient internal medicine (IM) clerkship. Building on work at the resident and fellowship levels, the task force focused on the development of key learning outcomes as defined by entrustable professional activities (EPAs) that were specific to educational experiences on the IM clerkship, as well as identification of high-priority assessment domains. The work was informed by a national survey of clerkship directors. Six key EPAs emerged: generating a differential diagnosis, obtaining a complete and accurate history and physical exam, obtaining focused histories and clinically relevant physical exams, preparing an oral presentation, interpreting the results of basic diagnostic studies, and providing well-organized clinical documentation. A model for assessment was proposed, with descriptors aligned to the scale of supervision and mapped to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education domains of competence. The proposed paradigm offers a standardized template that may be used across IM clerkships, and which would effectively bridge competency evaluation in the clerkship to fourth-year assessment as well as eventual postgraduate training.

Since its inception in 1989, Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) has promoted excellence in medical student education. CDIM members move medical education forward by sharing innovations in curriculum and assessment and discoveries related to educating our students and administering our programs. The Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine, of which CDIM is a founding member, broadens the umbrella beyond student education to include five academically focused specialty organizations representing departments of medicine, teaching hospitals, and medical schools working together to advance learning, discovery, and caring. CDIM held its 2015 annual meeting at Academic Internal Medicine Week in Atlanta, Georgia. This year 36 innovation and research submissions were selected for either oral abstract or poster presentation. The quality of the presentations was outstanding this year and included many of the most important issues in medical education. The CDIM research committee selected the following seven abstracts as being of the highest quality, the most generalizable, and relevant to the readership of Teaching and Learning in Medicine. Two abstracts include information from the CDIM annual survey, which remains a rich source for answering questions about student education on a national level. Looking at trends in medical education, three of the seven selected abstracts mention entrustable professional activities. Three of the abstracts address how we assess student skill and provide them with appropriate feedback. These include two schools' approach to bringing milestones into the medical student realm, use of objective structured clinical exam for assessing clinical skill in clerkship, and what students want in terms of feedback. Four articles deal with curricular innovation. These include interprofessional education, high-value care, transitions of care, and internship preparation. We are pleased to share these abstracts, which represent the breadth and quality of thought of our CDIM members.

Background: Medical students traditionally learn physical examination skills as a rote list of manoeuvres. Alternatives like hypothesis-driven physical examination (HDPE) may promote students' understanding of the contribution of physical examination to diagnostic reasoning. We sought to determine whether first-year medical students can effectively learn to perform a physical examination using an HDPE approach, and then tailor the examination to specific clinical scenarios. Context: First-year medical students at the University of Minnesota were taught both traditional and HDPE approaches during a required 17-week clinical skills course in their first semester. The end-of-course evaluation assessed HDPE skills: students were assigned one of two cardiopulmonary cases. Each case included two diagnostic hypotheses. During an interaction with a standardised patient, students were asked to select physical examination manoeuvres in order to make a final diagnosis. Items were weighted and selection order was recorded. Innovation: First-year students with minimal pathophysiology performed well. All students selected the correct diagnosis. Importantly, students varied the order when selecting examination manoeuvres depending on the diagnoses under consideration, demonstrating early clinical decision-making skills.

PurposeAlthough residents trust interns to provide patient care, little is known about how trust forms.MethodUsing a multi-institutional mixed-methods study design, the authors interviewed (March-September 2014) internal medicine (IM) residents in their second or third postgraduate year at a single institution to address how they develop trust in interns. Transcript analysis using grounded theory yielded a model for resident trust. Authors tested (January-March 2015) the model with residents from five IM programs using a two-section quantitative survey (38 items; 31 rated 0 = not at all to 100 = very much; 7 rated 0 = strongly disagree to 100 = strongly agree) to identify influences on how residents form trust.ResultsQualitative analysis of 29 interviews yielded 14 themes within five previously identified factors of trust (resident, intern, relationship, task, and context). Of 478 residents, 376 (78.7%) completed the survey. Factor analysis yielded 11 factors that influence trust. Respondents rated interns' characteristics (reliability, competence, and propensity to make errors) highest when indicating importance to trust (respective means 86.3 [standard deviation = 9.7], 76.4 [12.9], and 75.8 [20.0]). They also rated contextual factors highly as influencing trust (access to an electronic medical record, duty hours, and patient characteristics; respective means 79.8 [15.3], 73.1 [14.4], and 71.9 [20.0]).ConclusionsResidents form trust based on primarily intern-and context-specific factors. Residents appear to consider trust in a way that prioritizes interns' execution of essential patient care tasks safely within the complexities and constraints of the hospital environment.

In addition to training future members of the profession, medical schools perform the critical role of identifying students who are failing to meet minimum standards in core competencies.To better understand reasons for failure in an internal medicine clerkship.A qualitative content analysis of letters describing reasons for students' failure.Forty-three students (31 men) who failed the internal medicine clerkship at the University of Minnesota Medical School, 2002-2013.We conducted a qualitative content analysis of the 43 letters describing reasons for students' failure. We coded critical deficiencies and mapped them to the Physician Competency Reference Set (PCRS) competency domains and classified them into two categories: conduct (unprofessional behaviors) and knowledge and skills specific to the practice of medicine. We then calculated the frequency of each critical deficiency. We statistically tested for relationships between gender and critical deficiencies in each of the competency domains.We coded 50 critical deficiencies with all codes mapping to a PCRS competency domain. The most frequently cited deficiencies were "insufficient knowledge" (79 % of students) and "inadequate patient presentation skills" (74 %). Students exhibited critical deficiencies in all eight competency domains, with the highest concentrations in Knowledge for Practice (98 %) and Interpersonal and Communication Skills (91 %). All students demonstrated deficiencies in multiple competencies, with 98 % having deficiencies in three or more. All 43 students demonstrated deficits in the knowledge and skills category, and 81 % had concurrent conduct issues. There were no statistically significant relationships between gender and critical deficiencies in any competency domain.This study highlights both the diversity and commonality of reasons that students fail a clinical clerkship. Knowing the range of areas where students struggle, as well as the most likely areas of difficulty, may aid faculty in identifying students who are failing and in developing remediation strategies.

Although residents trust interns to provide patient care, little is known about how trust forms.Using a multi-institutional mixed-methods study design, the authors interviewed (March-September 2014) internal medicine (IM) residents in their second or third postgraduate year at a single institution to address how they develop trust in interns. Transcript analysis using grounded theory yielded a model for resident trust. Authors tested (January-March 2015) the model with residents from five IM programs using a two-section quantitative survey (38 items; 31 rated 0 = not at all to 100 = very much; 7 rated 0 = strongly disagree to 100 = strongly agree) to identify influences on how residents form trust.Qualitative analysis of 29 interviews yielded 14 themes within five previously identified factors of trust (resident, intern, relationship, task, and context). Of 478 residents, 376 (78.7%) completed the survey. Factor analysis yielded 11 factors that influence trust. Respondents rated interns' characteristics (reliability, competence, and propensity to make errors) highest when indicating importance to trust (respective means 86.3 [standard deviation = 9.7], 76.4 [12.9], and 75.8 [20.0]). They also rated contextual factors highly as influencing trust (access to an electronic medical record, duty hours, and patient characteristics; respective means 79.8 [15.3], 73.1 [14.4], and 71.9 [20.0]).Residents form trust based on primarily intern- and context-specific factors. Residents appear to consider trust in a way that prioritizes interns' execution of essential patient care tasks safely within the complexities and constraints of the hospital environment.

Hospitalist educators face a number of challenges in teaching clinical reasoning to residents and medical students. Helping to develop trainees' clinical acumen is an essential and highly nuanced process, yet complex patients, documentation requirements, and productivity goals compete with teaching time. Workplace-based assessment is particularly important for residents with the institution of the developmental milestones for meeting Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies. Two frameworks for facilitating the clinical reasoning discussion-the One-Minute Preceptor preceptor and SNAPPS-have been well studied in the outpatient setting with positive results. Both models show promise for use in the inpatient teaching environment with little modification. This narrative review compares and contrasts these 2 teaching frameworks and discusses their application to the inpatient teaching environment. These models can provide opportunities for hospitalist educators to better assess trainees, integrate regular feedback, and encourage self-directed learning. These teaching frameworks can also allow hospitalists to provide more focused education to trainees without taking additional valuable time.

Phenomenon: Medical students receive much of their inpatient teaching from residents who now experience restructured teaching services to accommodate the 2011 duty-hour regulations (DHR). The effect of DHR on medical student educational experiences is unknown. We examined medical students’ and clerkship directors’ perceptions of the effects of the 2011 DHR on internal medicine clerkship students’ experiences with teaching, feedback and evaluation, and patient care. Approach: Students at 14 institutions responded to surveys after their medicine clerkship or subinternship. Students who completed their clerkship (n = 839) and subinternship (n = 228) March to June 2011 (pre-DHR historical controls) were compared to clerkship students (n = 895) and subinterns (n = 377) completing these rotations March to June 2012 (post-DHR). Z tests for proportions correcting for multiple comparisons were performed to assess attitude changes. The Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine annual survey queried institutional members about the 2011 DHR just after implementation. Findings: Survey response rates were 64% and 50% for clerkship students and 60% and 48% for subinterns in 2011 and 2012 respectively, and 82% (99/121) for clerkship directors. Post-DHR, more clerkship students agreed that attendings (p =.011) and interns (p =.044) provided effective teaching. Clerkship students (p =.013) and subinterns (p =.001) believed patient care became more fragmented. The percentage of holdover patients clerkship students (p =.001) and subinterns (p =.012) admitted increased. Clerkship directors perceived negative effects of DHR for students on all survey items. Most disagreed that interns (63.1%), residents (67.8%), or attendings (71.1%) had more time to teach. Most disagreed that students received more feedback from interns (56.0%) or residents (58.2%). Fifty-nine percent felt that students participated in more patient handoffs. Insights: Students perceive few adverse consequences of the 2011 DHR on their internal medicine experiences, whereas their clerkship director educators have negative perceptions. Future research should explore the impact of fragmented patient care on the student–patient relationship and students’ clinical skills acquisition.

It is important to detect splenomegaly as it can have important diagnostic implications. Previous studies, however, have shown that the traditional physical examination is limited in its ability to rule in or rule out splenomegaly.

BACKGROUND:Key features examinations (KFEs) have been used to assess clinical decision making in medical education, yet there are no reports of an online KFE-based on a national curriculum for the internal medicine clerkship. What we did: The authors developed and pilot tested an electronic KFE based on the US Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine core curriculum. Teams, with expert oversight and peer review, developed key features (KFs) and cases.EVALUATION:The exam was pilot tested at eight medical schools with 162 third and fourth year medical students, of whom 96 (59.3%) responded to a survey. While most students reported that the exam was more difficult than a multiple choice question exam, 61 (83.3%) students agreed that it reflected problems seen in clinical practice and 51 (69.9%) students reported that it more accurately assessed the ability to make clinical decisions.CONCLUSIONS:The development of an electronic KFs exam is a time-intensive process. A team approach offers built-in peer review and accountability. Students, although not familiar with this format in the US, recognized it as authentically assessing clinical decision-making for problems commonly seen in the clerkship.

Medical education is moving toward assessment of educational outcomes rather than educational processes. The American Board of Internal Medicine and American Board of Pediatrics milestones and the concept of entrustable professional activities (EPA)—skills essential to the practice of medicine that educators progressively entrust learners to perform—provide new approaches to assessing outcomes. Although some defined EPAs exist for internal medicine and pediatrics, the continued development and implementation of EPAs remains challenging. As residency programs are expected to begin reporting milestone-based performance, however, they will need examples of how to overcome these challenges. The authors describe a model for the development and implementation of an EPA using the resident handoff as an example. The model includes nine steps: selecting the EPA, determining where skills are practiced and assessed, addressing barriers to assessment, determining components of the EPA, determining needed assessment tools, developing new assessments if needed, determining criteria for advancement through entrustment levels, mapping milestones to the EPA, and faculty development. Following implementation, 78% of interns at the University of Minnesota Medical School were observed giving handoffs and provided feedback. The authors suggest that this model of EPA development—which includes engaging stakeholders, an iterative process to describing the behavioral characteristics of each domain at each level of entrustment, and the development of specific assessment tools that support both formative feedback and summative decisions about entrustment—can serve as a model for EPA development for other clinical skills and specialty areas.

PurposeTo analyze the content and quality of PICO-formatted questions (Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome), and subsequent answers, from students' educational prescriptions added to the final SNAPPS Select step (SNAPPS-Plus).MethodInternal medicine clerkship students at the University of Minnesota Medical Center were instructed to use educational prescriptions to complement their bedside SNAPPS case presentations from 2006 to 2010. Educational prescriptions were collected from all eligible students and coded for topic of uncertainty, PICO conformity score, presence of answer, and quality of answer. Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to compare ordinal variables, Kruskal-Wallis test to compare distribution of PICO scores between groups, and McNemar exact test to test for association between higher PICO scores and presence of an answer.ResultsA total of 191 education prescriptions were coded from 191 eligible students, of which 190 (99%) included a question and 176 (93%, 176/190) an answer. Therapy questions constituted 59% (112/190) of the student-generated questions; 19% (37/190) were related to making a diagnosis. Three-fifths of the questions (61%, 116/190) were scored either 7 or 8 on the 8-point PICO conformity scale. The quality of answers varied, with 37% (71/190) meeting all criteria for high quality. There was a positive correlation between the PICO conformity score and the quality of the answers (Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient = 0.726; P <.001).ConclusionsThe SNAPPS-Plus technique was easily integrated into the inpatient clerkship structure and guaranteed that virtually every case presentation following this model had a well-formulated question and answer.

Purpose To analyze the content and quality of PICO-formatted questions (Patient–Intervention–Comparison–Outcome), and subsequent answers, from students’ educational prescriptions added to the final SNAPPS Select step (SNAPPS-Plus). Method Internal medicine clerkship students at the University of Minnesota Medical Center were instructed to use educational prescriptions to complement their bedside SNAPPS case presentations from 2006 to 2010. Educational prescriptions were collected from all eligible students and coded for topic of uncertainty, PICO conformity score, presence of answer, and quality of answer. Spearman rank–order correlation coefficient was used to compare ordinal variables, Kruskal–Wallis test to compare distribution of PICO scores between groups, and McNemar exact test to test for association between higher PICO scores and presence of an answer. Results A total of 191 education prescriptions were coded from 191 eligible students, of which 190 (99%) included a question and 176 (93%, 176/190) an answer. Therapy questions constituted 59% (112/190) of the student-generated questions; 19% (37/190) were related to making a diagnosis. Three-fifths of the questions (61%, 116/190) were scored either 7 or 8 on the 8-point PICO conformity scale. The quality of answers varied, with 37% (71/190) meeting all criteria for high quality. There was a positive correlation between the PICO conformity score and the quality of the answers (Spearman rank–order correlation coefficient = 0.726; P < .001). Conclusions The SNAPPS-Plus technique was easily integrated into the inpatient clerkship structure and guaranteed that virtually every case presentation following this model had a well-formulated question and answer.

Purpose To determine which resources residents use at the point-of-care (POC) for decision making, the drivers for selection of these resources, and how residents use Google/Google Scholar to answer clinical questions at the POC. Method In January 2012, 299 residents from three internal medicine residencies were sent an electronic survey regarding resources used for POC decision making. Resource use frequency and factors influencing choice were determined using descriptive statistics. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine relationships between the independent variables. Results A total of 167 residents (56%) responded; similar numbers responded at each level of training. Residents most frequently reported using UpToDate and Google at the POC at least daily (85% and 63%, respectively), with speed and trust in the quality of information being the primary drivers of selection. Google, used by 68% of residents, was used primarily to locate Web sites and general information about diseases, whereas Google Scholar, used by 30% of residents, tended to be used for treatment and management decisions or locating a journal article. Conclusions The findings suggest that internal medicine residents use UpToDate most frequently, followed by consultation with faculty and the search engines Google and Google Scholar; speed, trust, and portability are the biggest drivers for resource selection; and time and information overload appear to be the biggest barriers to resources such as Ovid MEDLINE. Residents frequently used Google and may benefit from further training in information management skills.