Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To determine e-mail utilization patterns and attitudes toward e-mail use among primary care physicians and their ambulatory outpatient clinic patients. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional baseline survey. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Participants included 476 consecutive outpatient clinic patients, 126 general medical and family practice physicians, and 16 clinical and office staff from 2 large primary care centers within an academic teaching system. They completed a survey about e-mail usage patterns and their attitudes toward using e-mail for patient-provider communication. RESULTS: More than half of patients (52.1%) were self-defined e-mail users, yet only 10.5% of those users had ever used e-mail to communicate with their doctors. Seventy percent of all patients said they would be willing to use e-mail to communicate with their doctors. Overall, patients were concerned about logistics, such as whether the message would get to the right person and how long it would take to get a response. Physicians and staff were more optimistic than patients about the potential for e-mail to improve the doctor-patient relationship. Patient e-mail users, patient e-mail nonusers, physicians, and staff reported low levels of concern about the security and privacy of e-mail. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-provider e-mail may diffuse slowly into the primary care clinical practice setting because of patient concerns about efficiency and effectiveness and whether e-mail use will improve their relationship with providers. Managed care organizations that plan to build e-mail and Web-based patient portals will need to promote these technologies in a way that educates both patient and providers about their appropriate use.