Faculty Bibliography

Once medical students attain a certain level of medical knowledge, success in residency often depends on noncognitive attributes, such as conscientiousness, empathy, and grit. These traits are significantly more difficult to assess than cognitive performance, creating a potential gap in measurement. Despite its promise, competency-based medical education (CBME) has yet to bridge this gap, partly due to a lack of well-defined noncognitive observable behaviors that assessors and educators can use in formative and summative assessment. As a result, typical undergraduate to graduate medical education handovers stress standardized test scores, and program directors trust little of the remaining information they receive, sometimes turning to third-party companies to better describe potential residency candidates. The authors have created a list of noncognitive attributes, with associated definitions and noncognitive skills-called observable practice activities (OPAs)-written for learners across the continuum to help educators collect assessment data that can be turned into valuable information. OPAs are discrete work-based assessment elements collected over time and mapped to larger structures, such as milestones, entrustable professional activities, or competencies, to create learning trajectories for formative and summative decisions. Medical schools and graduate medical education programs could adapt these OPAs or determine ways to create new ones specific to their own contexts. Once OPAs are created, programs will have to find effective ways to assess them, interpret the data, determine consequence validity, and communicate information to learners and institutions. The authors discuss the need for culture change surrounding assessment-even for the adoption of behavior-based tools such as OPAs-including grounding the work in a growth mindset and the broad underpinnings of CBME. Ultimately, improving assessment of noncognitive capacity should benefit learners, schools, programs, and most importantly, patients.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:The elimination of the USMLE Step 1 three-digit score has created a deficit in standardized performance metrics for undergraduate medical educators and residency program directors. It is likely that there will be greater emphasis on USMLE Step 2 CK, an exam found to be associated with later clinical performance in residents and physicians. Because many previous models relied on Step 1 scores to predict student performance on Step 2 CK, we developed a model using other metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Assessment data for 228 students in three cohorts (classes of 2018, 2019, and 2020) were collected, including the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), NBME Customized Assessment Service (CAS) exams and NBME Subject exams. A linear regression model was conducted to predict Step 2 CK scores at five time-points: at the end of years one and two and at three trimester intervals in year three. An additional cohort (class of 2021) was used to validate the model. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:= 0.62). Including Step 1 scores did not significantly improve the final model. Using metrics from the class of 2021, the model predicted Step 2 CK performance within a mean square error (MSE) of 8.3 points (SD = 6.8) at the end of year 1 increasing predictability incrementally to within a mean of 5.4 points (SD = 4.1) by the end of year 3. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:This model is highly generalizable and enables medical educators to predict student performance on Step 2 CK in the absence of Step 1 quantitative data as early as the end of the first year of medical education with increasingly stronger predictions as students progressed through the clerkship year.

The Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) is an important tool of communication used by program directors to make decisions in the residency application process. To understand the perspective and usage of the MSPE across multiple medical specialties now and in anticipation of the planned changes in USMLE Step 1 score-reporting. A survey instrument including quantitative and qualitative measures was developed and piloted. The final survey was distributed to residency programs across 28 specialties in 2020 via the main contact on the ACGME listserv. Of the 28 specialties surveyed, at least one response was received from 26 (93%). Eight percent of all programs (364/4675) responded to the survey, with most respondents being program directors. Usage of the MSPE varied among specialties. Approximately 1/3 of end-users stated that the MSPE is very or extremely influential in their initial screening process. Slightly less than half agreed or strongly agreed that they trust the information to be an accurate representation of applicants, though slightly more than half agree that the MSPE will become more influential once USMLE Step 1 becomes pass/fail. Professionalism was rated as the most important component and noteworthy characteristics among the least important in the decision-making process. Performance in the internal medicine clerkship was rated as the most influential while neurology and psychiatry performances were rated as less influential. Overwhelmingly, respondents suggested that including comparative performance and/or class rank would make the MSPE more useful once USMLE Step 1 becomes pass/fail. MSPE end-users across a variety of specialties utilize this complex document in different ways and value it differentially in their decision-making processes. Despite this, continued mistrust of the MSPE persists. A better understanding of end-users' perceptions of the MSPE offers the UME community an opportunity to transform the MSPE into a highly valued, trusted document of communication.

BACKGROUND:The Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) provides important information to residency programs. Despite recent recommendations for standardization, it is not clear how much variation exists in MSPE content among schools. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We describe the current section content of the MSPE in US allopathic medical schools, with a particular focus on variations in the presentation of student performance. METHODS:A representative MSPE was obtained from 95.3% (143 of 150) of allopathic US medical schools through residency applications to the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in select programs for the 2019-2020 academic year. A manual data abstraction tool was piloted in 2018-2019. After training, it was used to code all portions of the MSPE in this study. The results were analyzed, and descriptive statistics were reported. RESULTS:In preclinical years, 30.8% of MSPEs reported data regarding performance of students beyond achieving "passes" in a pass/fail curriculum. Only half referenced performance in the fourth year including electives, acting internships, or both. About two-thirds of schools included an overall descriptor of comparative performance in the final paragraph. Among these schools, a majority provided adjectives such as "outstanding/excellent/very good/good," while one-quarter reported numerical data categories. Regarding clerkship grades, there were numerous nomenclature systems used. CONCLUSIONS:This analysis demonstrates the existence of extreme variability in the content of MSPEs submitted by US allopathic medical schools in the 2019-2020 cycle, including the components and nomenclature of grades and descriptors of comparative performance, display of data, and inclusion of data across all years of the medical education program.

Issue: Calls to change medical education have been frequent, persistent, and generally limited to alterations in content or structural re-organization. Self-imposed barriers have prevented adoption of more radical pedagogical approaches, so recent predictions of the 'inevitability' of medical education transitioning to online delivery seemed unlikely. Then in March 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic forced medical schools to overcome established barriers overnight and make the most rapid curricular shift in medical education's history. We share the collated reports of nine medical schools and postulate how recent responses may influence future medical education. Evidence: While extraneous pandemic-related factors make it impossible to scientifically distinguish the impact of the curricular changes, some themes emerged. The rapid transition to online delivery was made possible by all schools having learning management systems and key electronic resources already blended into their curricula; we were closer to online delivery than anticipated. Student engagement with online delivery varied with different pedagogies used and the importance of social learning and interaction along with autonomy in learning were apparent. These are factors known to enhance online learning, and the student-centered modalities (e.g. problem-based learning) that included them appeared to be more engaging. Assumptions that the new online environment would be easily adopted and embraced by 'technophilic' students did not always hold true. Achieving true distance medical education will take longer than this 'overnight' response, but adhering to best practices for online education may open a new realm of possibilities. Implications: While this experience did not confirm that online medical education is really 'inevitable,' it revealed that it is possible. Thoughtfully blending more online components into a medical curriculum will allow us to take advantage of this environment's strengths such as efficiency and the ability to support asynchronous and autonomous learning that engage and foster intrinsic learning in our students. While maintaining aspects of social interaction, online learning could enhance pre-clinical medical education by allowing integration and collaboration among classes of medical students, other health professionals, and even between medical schools. What remains to be seen is whether COVID-19 provided the experience, vision and courage for medical education to change, or whether the old barriers will rise again when the pandemic is over.

Medical students provide clinical teaching faculty with feedback on their skills as educators through anonymous surveys at the end of their clerkship rotation. Because faculty are in a position of power, students are hesitant to provide candid feedback. Our objective was to determine if medical students were willing to provide negative upward feedback to clinical faculty and describe how they conveyed their feedback. A qualitative analysis of third year medical students' open-ended comments from evaluations of six clerkships was performed using politeness theory as a conceptual framework. Students were asked to describe how the clerkship enhanced their learning and how it could be improved. Midway through the academic year, instructions to provide full names of faculty/residents was added. Overall, there were significantly more comments on what worked well than suggestions for improvement regarding faculty/residents. Instructing students to name-names increased the rate of naming from 35% to 75% for what worked well and from 13% to 39% for suggestions for improvement. Hedging language was included in 61% of suggestions for improvement, but only 2% of what worked well. Students described the variability of their experience, used passive language and qualified negative experiences with positive ones. Medical students may use linguistic strategies, such as impersonalizing and hedging, to mitigate the impact of negative upward feedback. Working towards a culture that supports upward feedback would allow students to feel more comfortable providing candid comments about their experience.

In response to the need for physician leaders, the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell developed the Klar Leadership Development and Innovation Management program. This novel program leverages its partnership with a large Northeast health system to longitudinally provide students with leadership fundamentals and mentored experiences.

Medical knowledge examinations employing open-ended (constructed response) items can be useful to assess medical students' factual and conceptual understanding. Modern day curricula that emphasize active learning in small groups and other interactive formats lend themselves to an assessment format that prompts students to share conceptual understanding, explain, and elaborate. The open-ended question examination format can provide faculty with insights into learners' abilities to apply information to clinical or scientific problems, and reveal learners' misunderstandings about essential content. To implement formative or summative assessments with open-ended questions in a rigorous manner, educators must design systems for exam creation and scoring. This includes systems for constructing exam blueprints, items and scoring rubrics, and procedures for scoring and standard setting. Information gained through review of students' responses can guide future educational sessions and curricular changes in a cycle of continuous improvement.

Background/UNASSIGNED:COVID-19 exposed undergraduate medical education curricular gaps in exploring historical pandemics, how to critically consume scientific literature and square it with the lay press, and how to grapple with emerging ethical issues. In addition, as medical students were dismissed from clinical environments, their capacity to build community and promote professional identity formation was compromised. Methods/UNASSIGNED:was developed using a modified guided inquiry approach. Students met daily for 2 weeks in groups of 15 to 18 with a process facilitator. During the first week, students reported on lessons learned from past pandemics; in the second week, students discussed ethical concerns surrounding COVID-19 clinical trials, heard from physicians who provided patient care in the HIV and COVID-19 pandemics, and concluded with an opportunity for reflection. Following the course, students were asked to complete an anonymous, voluntary survey to assess their perceptions of the course. Results/UNASSIGNED:With a response rate of 69%, an overwhelming majority of students agreed or strongly agreed that learning about historical pandemics helped them understand COVID-19 (72, 99%). The course successfully helped students understand current and potential COVID-19 management strategies as 66 (90%) agreed or strongly agreed they developed a better understanding of nonpharmacological interventions and new pharmacological treatments. Students also gained insight into the experiences of healthcare providers who cared for patients with HIV and COVID-19. Qualitative analysis of the open-ended comments yielded 5 main themes: critical appraisal of resources, responsibility of the physician, humanism, knowledge related to pandemics, and learning from history. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:The onset of the COVID-19 crisis illustrated curricular gaps that could be remedied by introducing the history and biology of pandemics earlier in the curriculum. It was also apparent that learners need more practice in critically reviewing literature and comparing scientific literature with lay press. The flexible format of the course promotes the development of future iterations that could cover evolving topics related to COVID-19. The course could also be repurposed for a graduate or continuing medical education audience.