Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: E-mail use in the clinical setting has been slow to diffuse for several reasons, including providers' concerns about patients' inappropriate and inefficient use of the technology. This study examined the content of a random sample of patient-physician e-mail messages to determine the validity of those concerns. DESIGN: A qualitative analysis of patient-physician e-mail messages was performed. MEASUREMENTS: A total of 3,007 patient-physician e-mail messages were collected over 11 months as part of a randomized, controlled trial of a triage-based e-mail system in two primary care centers (including 98 physicians); 10% of messages were randomly selected for review. Messages were coded across such domains as message type, number of requests per e-mail, inclusion of sensitive content, necessity of a physician response, and message tone. RESULTS: The majority (82.8%) of messages addressed a single issue. The most common message types included information updates to the physicians (41.4%), prescription renewals (24.2%), health questions (13.2%), questions about test results (10.9%), referrals (8.8%), "other" (including thank yous, apologies) (8.8%), appointments (5.4%), requests for non-health-related information (4.8%), and billing questions (0.3%). Overall, messages were concise, formal, and medically relevant. Very few (5.1%) included sensitive content, and none included urgent messages. Less than half (43.2%) required a physician response. CONCLUSION: A triage-based e-mail system promoted e-mail exchanges appropriate for primary care. Most patients adhered to guidelines aimed at focusing content, limiting the number of requests per message, and avoiding urgent requests or highly sensitive content. Thus, physicians' concerns about the content of patients' e-mails may be unwarranted.

BACKGROUND: One of the most effective methods for teaching physical diagnosis may be standardized patient instructors. PURPOSE: To determine if a lecture plus standardized patient instructors with small-group sessions is more effective than a lecture alone for teaching the evaluation of patients with abdominal pain. METHODS: Control (class of 2001) and intervention (class of 2002) groups both attended a lecture on the abdominal examination. The intervention group then underwent an exercise with standardized patient instructors and a review session with surgical faculty. An evaluation 18 months later used standardized patient instructors to complete evaluations assessing history-taking and physical examination skills. RESULTS: The intervention group performed significantly better than the control group on both the history and the physical examination subscales. CONCLUSION: It is possible to have an important, measurable, and lasting effect on physical examination skills by adding standardized patient instructors and small-group discussion to a lecture presentation.

Using an international network of experts in medical education, the Institute for International Medical Education (IIME) developed the Global Minimum Essential Requirements (GMER) as a set of competence-based outcomes for graduating students. To establish a set of tools to evaluate these competences, the IIME then convened a Task Force of international experts on assessment that reviewed the GMER. After screening 75 potential assessment tools, they identified three that could be used most effectively. Of the 60 competences envisaged in the GMER, 36 can be assessed using a 150-item multiple-choice question (MCQ) examination, 15 by using a 15-station objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), and 17 by using a 15-item faculty observation form. In cooperation with eight leading medical schools in China, the MCQ, OSCE and Faculty Observation Form were developed to be used in an assessment program that is scheduled to be given to all seven-year students in October 2003.

OBJECTIVES: E-mail communication between patients and their providers has diffused slowly in clinical practice. To address concerns about the use of this technology, we performed a randomized controlled trial of a triage-based e-mail system in primary care. DESIGN AND PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Physicians in 2 university-affiliated primary care centers were randomized to a triage-based e-mail system promoted to their patients. E-mails from patients of intervention physicians were routed to a central account and parsed to the appropriate staff for response. Control group physicians and their patients did not have access to the system. We collected information on patient e-mail use, phone calls, and visit distribution by physician over the 10 months and performed physician and patient surveys to examine attitudes about communication. RESULTS: E-mail volume was greater for intervention versus control physicians (46 weekly e-mails per 100 scheduled visits vs 9 in the control group at the study midpoint; P <.01) but there were no between-group differences in phone volume (67 weekly phone calls per 100 scheduled visits vs 55 in the control group; P =.45) or rates of patient no-shows (5% in both groups; P =.77). Intervention physicians reported more favorable attitudes toward electronic communication than did control physicians but there were no differences in attitudes toward patient or staff communication in general. There were few between-group differences in patient attitudes toward electronic communication or communication in general. CONCLUSIONS: E-mail generated through a triage-based system did not appear to substitute for phone communication or to reduce visit no-shows in a primary care setting. Physicians' attitudes toward electronic communication were improved, but physicians' and patients' attitudes toward general communication did not change. Growth of e-mail communication in primary care settings may not improve the efficiency of clinical care.

PROBLEM STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND: Cross-cultural experiences are in increasing demand by both graduate and undergraduate medical students, yet the benefits of these experiences are not clearly established. METHOD: A review of the literature was conducted to identify articles on the outcomes of cross-cultural experiences. Themes were identified and categorized into domains. RESULTS: Forty-two studies were found; 27 articles used qualitative methods, nine used quantitative methods, and six used both. Most (24) were from the nursing literature, 18 were from the medical literature. All studies reported positive outcomes along four domains: students' professional development, students' personal development, medical school benefits, and host population benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Studies reviewed were primarily case controlled or case series. Future research is needed that more clearly defines outcome measures and uses more rigorous methods. Although results suggest positive outcomes in all domains, additional research is needed before cross-cultural rotations can be supported based on evidence.