Background: Medical students face numerous stressors during their clinical years, including difficult clinical events. Fostering resilience is a promising way to mitigate negative effects of stressors, prevent burnout, and help students thrive after difficult experiences. However, little is known about medical student resilience. Objective: To characterize medical student resilience and responses to difficult clinical events during clinical training. Design: Sixty-two third-year (MS3) and 55 fourth-year (MS4) University of Chicago medical students completed surveys in 2016 assessing resilience (Connor Davidson Resilience Scale, CD-RISC 10), symptoms of burnout, need for resilience training, and responses to difficult clinical events. Results: Medical student mean resilience was lower than in a general population sample. Resilience was higher in males, MS4s, those without burnout symptoms, and students who felt able to cope with difficult clinical events. When students experienced difficult events in the clinical setting, the majority identified poor team dynamics among the most stressful, and agreed their wellbeing was affected by difficult clinical events. A majority also would prefer to discuss these events with their team later that day. Students discussed events with peers more than with attendings or residents. Students comfortable discussing stress and burnout with peers had higher resilience. Most students believed resilience training would be helpful and most beneficial during MS3 year. Conclusions: Clinical medical student resilience was lower than in the general population but higher in MS4s and students reporting no burnout. Students had some insight into their resilience and most thought resilience training would be helpful. Students discussed difficult clinical events most often with peers. More curricula promoting medical student resilience are needed.

While most patients were scheduled for appointments after a clinic handoff, many did not see the correct resident and one-fifth were lost to follow-up. Patients who miss appointments are especially at risk of poor clinic handoff outcomes. Future efforts should improve patient attendance to their first new PCP visit and increase PCP ownership.

OBJECTIVES:To systematically review the literature to characterize interventions with potential to improve outcomes for minority patients with asthma. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Trial Databases, expert review, reference review, meeting abstracts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTEVENTIONS: Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms related to asthma were combined with terms to identify intervention studies focused on minority populations. Inclusion criteria: adult population; intervention studies with majority of non-White participants. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS OF METHODS:Study quality was assessed using Downs and Black (DB) checklists. We examined heterogeneity of studies through comparing study population, study design, intervention characteristics, and outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles met inclusion criteria. Mean quality score was 21.0. Study populations targeted primarily African American (n=14), followed by Latino/a (n=4), Asian Americans (n=1), or a combination of the above (n=5). The most commonly reported post-intervention outcome was use of health care resources, followed by symptom control and self-management skills. The most common intervention-type studied was patient education. Although less-than half were culturally tailored, language-appropriate education appeared particularly successful. Several system-level interventions focused on specialty clinics with promising findings, although health disparities collaboratives did not have similarly promising results. LIMITATIONS: Publication bias may limit our findings; we were unable to perform a meta-analysis limiting the review's quantitative evaluation. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS:Overall, education delivered by health care professionals appeared effective in improving outcomes for minority patients with asthma. Few were culturally tailored and one included a comparison group, limiting the conclusions that can be drawn from cultural tailoring. Systemredesign showed great promise, particularly the use of team-based specialty clinics and long-term follow-up after acute care visits. Future research should evaluate the role of tailoring educational strategies, focus on patient-centered education, and incorporate outpatient follow-up and/or a team-based approach.

Small group resilience workshops were feasible over 2 years and well received by IM interns, who noted gaining new skills to approach challenges. There was no improvement in resilience scores after the sessions.