Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: Communication skills are crucial for high-risk behavior screening and counseling. Practicing physicians have limited opportunities to improve these skills. This paper assesses the impact of a continuing medical education (CME) program for Student Health Center clinicians that targeted communication skills, screening practices and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Program evaluation included pre- and post-objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE's), chart review, and provider and patient satisfaction surveys. Data were analyzed using paired t-tests and ranked sum tests. RESULTS: OSCE scores (n=15) revealed significant improvements in communication skills overall (p=0.004) and within specific domains (data gathering: p=0.003; rapport building: p=0.01; patient education: p=0.02), but no change in case-specific knowledge (p=0.1). Participants (n=14) reported high satisfaction with program methods (mean=4.6/5) and content (mean=4.7/5), 70% planning to alter their clinical practice. Chart audits (pre=96, post=103) showed increased screening for smoking (RR 1.65, p=0.03), depressed mood (RR 1.40, p=0.04), anhedonia (RR 1.47, p=0.01), sexual activity (RR 1.73, p=0.002) and drinking (RR 1.77, p=0.04). Sampling of satisfaction among participants' patients (pre n=689, post n=383) detected no increase in already high baseline satisfaction. CONCLUSION: This curriculum improved clinicians' relevant skills and screening behavior. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Skills-oriented CME can improve clinicians' communication skills and screening and counseling practices

OBJECTIVES: Gastroenterology (GI) training programs must develop the teaching skills of their faculty and provide feedback to their fellows. Many faculty feel uncomfortable offering feedback or identifying specific areas for improvement to the fellows. We developed an Observed Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) to assess fellows' skills and provided faculty with specific criteria to rate the fellows' performance. We propose that OSCEs can serve as tools for faculty development in delivering effective feedback. METHODS: Faculty completed a Web-based training module and received written guidelines on giving feedback. Four OSCE stations were completed by each fellow with faculty using standardized checklists to assess the fellows' skills. Afterwards, faculty rated each program component and assessed their comfort level with feedback. RESULTS: Eight faculty members and 10 fellows from 5 GI training programs in NYC participated. 100% of the faculty agreed that feedback is an important learning tool, should include the learner's self-assessment, and that feedback skills could improve with practice. Compared to faculty skills prior to the program, 87.5% of the faculty agreed that they focused more on specific behaviors and 75% agreed that giving negative feedback was now easier. CONCLUSIONS: OSCEs can serve as practicums for faculty development in giving constructive feedback.

Researchers lack the rich evidence base and benchmark patient outcomes needed to evaluate the effectiveness of medical education practice and guide policy. The authors offer a framework for medical education research that focuses on physician-influenced patient outcomes that are potentially sensitive to medical education. Adapting the concept of ambulatory care sensitive conditions, which provided traction to health services research by defining benchmark patient outcomes to measure health system performance, the authors introduce the concept and propose the adoption of educationally sensitive patient outcomes and suggest two measures: patient activation and clinical microsystem activation. They assert that the ultimate goal of medical education is to ensure that measurement of future physicians' competence and skills is based not only on biomedical knowledge and critical clinical skills but also on the ability to translate these competencies into effective patient- and systems-level outcomes. The authors consider methodological approaches and challenges to measuring such outcomes and argue for large, multiinstitutional, prospective cohort studies and the development of a national Database for Research in Education in Academic Medicine to provide the needed infrastructure. They advocate taking the next steps to establish an educational evidence base to guide the academic medical centers of the 21st century in aligning medical education practice with health care delivery that meets the needs of individuals and populations