BackgroundProfessionalism development is influenced by the informal and hidden curriculum. The primary objective of this study was to better understand this experiential learning in the setting of the Emergency Department (ED). Secondarily, the study aimed to explore differences in the informal curriculum between Emergency Medicine (EM) and Internal Medicine (IM) clerkships.MethodsA thematic analysis was conducted on 377 professionalism narratives from medical students completing a required EM clerkship from July 2008 through May 2010. The narratives were analyzed using established thematic categories from prior research as well as basic descriptive characteristics. Chi-square analysis was used to compare the frequency of thematic categories to prior research in IM. Finally, emerging themes not fully appreciated in the established thematic categories were created using grounded theory.ResultsObservations involving interactions between attending physician and patient were most abundant. The narratives were coded as positive 198 times, negative 128 times, and hybrid 37 times. The two most abundant narrative themes involved manifesting respect (36.9%) and spending time (23.7%). Both of these themes were statistically more likely to be noted by students on EM clerkships compared to IM clerkships. Finally, one new theme regarding cynicism emerged during analysis.ConclusionsThis analysis describes an informal curriculum that is diverse in themes. Student narratives suggest their clinical experiences to be influential on professionalism development. Medical students focus on different aspects of professionalism depending on clerkship specialty.
Objectives The COVID‐19 pandemic has necessitated the widescale adoption of video‐based interviewing for residency applications. Video interviews have previously been used in the residency application process through the pilot program of the American Association of Medical Colleges standardized video interview (SVI). We conducted an SVI preparation program with our students over 3 years that consisted of an instructional lecture, deliberate practice in video interviewing, and targeted feedback by emergency medicine faculty. The aim of this investigation was to summarize the feedback students received on their practice SVIs to provide the guidance they need for preparing for the video interviews that will replace in‐person interviews with residency programs. Methods A retrospective thematic analysis was conducted on faculty feedback provided to students who had completed SVI practice videos in preparation for their application to an EM residency between June 2017 and July 2019. Categorized comments were also sorted by type of faculty feedback: positive reinforcement, constructive criticism, or both. Results Forty‐six medical students received 334 feedback elements from three faculty. Feedback was balanced between positive reinforcement statements and constructive criticism. Students performed well on appearance and attire, creating a proper recording environment, and response content. They needed the most guidance with the delivery of content and the technical quality of the video. Conclusions Our results demonstrate a need for formal instruction in how to communicate effectively through the video medium. Medical educators will need to formally prepare students for tele‐interviews with residency programs, with an emphasis on communication skills and techniques for improving the quality of their video presentation, including lighting and camera placement.
IntroducationIt is essential for faculty to receive feedback on their teaching for the purpose of improvement as well as promotion. It can be challenging to motivate students to provide feedback to preceptors and fill out evaluation forms when not a clerkship requirement. Furthermore, there is concern that making the evaluations a requirement can compromise the quality of the feedback. The objective of this study was to identify an increase in the number of faculty and resident evaluations completed by students rotating through their Emergency Medicine clerkship following the implementation of a tit-for-tat incentive strategy.MethodPrior to the implementation of Tit-for-Tat, students rotating through their emergency medicine clerkship were asked to fill out evaluations of residents and faculty members with whom they worked. These were encouraged but voluntary. Beginning in the 2014–2015 academic year, a tit-for-tat strategy was employed whereby students had to complete a resident or faculty evaluation in order to view the student assessment completed by that resident or faculty preceptor.ResultsStudents submitted 1101 evaluations in the control, with a mean of 3.60 evaluations completed per student and 3.77 evaluations received per preceptor. Following the implementation of tit-for-tat, students submitted 2736 evaluations, with a mean of 8.19 evaluations completed per student and 7.52 evaluations received per preceptor. Both the increase in evaluations completed per student and evaluations received per preceptor were statistically significant with p-value <0.001.ConclusionThe tit-for-tat strategy significantly increased the number of evaluations submitted by students rotating through their emergency medicine clerkship. This has served as an effective tool to increase the overall number of evaluations completed, the number of evaluations each instructor received on average and the proportion of students that completed evaluations. Further work could be done to attempt to better assess the quality of the feedback from these evaluations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.