Background The COVID-19 pandemic posed a unique challenge for summer research programs in 2020, particularly for programs aimed at hands-on experience for younger trainees. The Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center supports two pipeline programs, which traditionally immerse high school juniors, seniors, and early undergraduate students from underrepresented populations in science in hands-on projects in cancer biology labs. However, due to social distancing policies during the pandemic and reduction of research operations, these students were not physically allowed on campus. Thus, the authors set out to strategically pivot to a wholly virtual curriculum and evaluate the Virtual Summer Research Experience in Cancer outcomes. Methods The virtual program included four components: 1. a core science and professional development curriculum led by high school teachers and senior undergraduates; 2. faculty-delivered didactic sessions on cancer science; 3. mentored, virtual research projects with research faculty; and 4. online networking events to encourage vertical mentoring. Outcomes data were measured using a locally created 11-item Research Preparation Scale, daily electronic feedback, and weekly structured evaluation and feedback via Zoom. Results Outcome data suggested high self-reported satisfaction with the virtual program. Outcome data also revealed the importance of coordination between multiple entities for seamless program implementation. This includes the active recruitment and participation of high school teachers and further investment in information technology capabilities of institutions. Conclusions Findings reveal a path to educate and train high school and early undergraduate students in cancer research when hands-on, in-person training is not feasible. Virtual research experiences are not only useful to engage students during public health crises but can provide an avenue for cancer centers to expand their cancer education footprints to remotely located schools and universities with limited resources to provide such experiences to their students.

While navigating a medical or surgical gender transition, transgender, and nonbinary people encounter anatomical language and concepts through their own informal research on the topics and directly through healthcare providers. Use of appropriate and inclusive language is important for affirming identities and can be fostered at any point during professional training through modeling of inclusive language and in the formal curriculum, including during anatomical education. In this article we discuss anatomical language and how it intersects with gender identity, first from the perspective of a transgender patient, then from the perspective of an anatomy educator. The patient shared how she benefited from informative resources, nongendered language, language tailored to her level of understanding, and providers not making generalizations about her based on her anatomy or sex assigned at birth. The educator shared her experience developing a primer on sex and gender that moved beyond a prescriptive binary and exposed students to language and concepts inclusive of diverse sexual and gender identities. Recommendations were made related to how to implement these lessons and better explore how transgender and nonbinary individuals experience anatomical language and the potential impact of language that is inclusive of gender-diverse persons in anatomical education as part of health professions programs. While sound medicine, procedure, science, and experienced professional skill were necessary, an essential positive aspect of the medical and gender transitions discussed was an intentionality around language by providers-including anatomical language.

Purpose The number of medical science educators, who commit the majority of their time to education‐related duties, is ostensibly on the rise. Given the growing role separation between teaching and biomedical research faculty in medical education, it is timely to examine how institutions communicate their promotion criteria related to educational excellence and scholarship. This study investigates the extent to which medical schools' promotion criteria align with published standards for documenting educational activities. Methods Promotion guidelines from U.S. allopathic and osteopathic medical schools were collected mostly from institutional websites and were systematically analyzed according to a predefined data extraction rubric adapted from previously published standards for documenting educational activities. After 10 researchers each independently reviewed and extracted data from 1/5 of all guidelines, researchers compared their findings in pairs and reached consensus on all identified discrepancies prior to final data submission. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency of cited promotion criteria. Results Promotion‐related documents were retrieved for 110 (59%) of the 185 allopathic and osteopathic U.S. medical schools. Fifteen percent of schools were cited as lacking explicit direction for education focused faculty to attain academic advancement. Across seven education‐related domains, ‘educational measurement and evaluation’ was the least represented with only 37% of schools referencing this domain in their guidelines. The other domains including teaching, curriculum/program development, mentoring/advising, educational leadership/administration, research/scholarship, and service were referenced by at least 59% of schools. Overall, only 20% of schools were judged to have above average or very comprehensive criteria for excellence in education. Conclusions While most medical schools acknowledge education within their promotion criteria, only three fully embraced the educational excellence standards recommended in the literature. These data should be concerning to current teaching faculty who may be evaluated for promotion based on vague and/or incomplete promotion criteria. With greater awareness of how educational excellence is currently documented and how promotion criteria can be improved, more schools may be compelled to embrace change and to follow recommended best practices. Support or Funding Information None This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

No abstract

Background The COVID‐19 pandemic has had a profound impact on medical care and medical student education as clinical rotations were halted and students' clinical activities were drastically curtailed. Learning experiences in medical school are known to promote identity formation through teamwork, reflection, and values‐based community discussion. This study explored the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on medical students' professional identity formation (PIF). Methods Students in all cohorts of medical education were invited by email in May 2020 to submit a written reflection about their learning experiences and impact of the pandemic on their PIF. We used iterative individual and team reviews, known as the “immersion/crystallisation” method, to code and analyse the data. Findings Twenty‐six students (20%) submitted reflections in which they discussed “changing conceptions of the role and image of a physician,” “views about medical education,” and the “role of students in a pandemic.” Students viewed physicians as altruistic, effective communicators, and pledged to be like them in the future. Their perceptions of virtual learning were mixed, along with considerations of lost interactions with patients, and wanting to be more useful as professionals‐in‐training. Discussion COVID‐19 has impacted students' views of themselves and reshaped their ideas, both negatively and positively, about the profession they are entering and their role(s) in it. Conclusion Exploring PIF and the impact of disruptions has allowed us to address the issues raised regarding clinical learning now and into the future. Reflection enhances PIF and unexpected events, such as COVID‐19, offer opportunities for reflection and development.