Introduction Clinical reasoning is the complex cognitive process that drives the diagnosis of disease and treatment of patients. There is a national call for medical educators to develop clinical reasoning curricula in undergraduate medical education. To address this need, we developed a longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum for internal medicine clerkship students. Methods We delivered six 1-hour sessions to approximately 40 students over the 15-week combined medicine-surgery clerkship at Penn State College of Medicine. We developed the content using previous work in clinical reasoning, including the American College of Physicians' Teaching Medicine Series book Teaching Clinical Reasoning . Students applied a clinical reasoning diagnostic framework to written cases during each workshop. Each session followed a scaffold approach and built upon previously learned clinical reasoning skills. We administered a pre- and postsurvey to assess students' baseline knowledge of clinical reasoning concepts and perceived confidence in performing clinical reasoning skills. Students also provided open-ended responses regarding the effectiveness of the curriculum. Results The curriculum was well received by students and led to increased perceived knowledge of clinical reasoning concepts and increased confidence in applying clinical reasoning skills. Students commented on the usefulness of practicing clinical reasoning in a controlled environment while utilizing a framework that could be deliberately applied to patient care. Discussion The longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum was effective in reinforcing key concepts of clinical reasoning and allowed for deliberate practice in a controlled environment. The curriculum is generalizable to students in both the preclinical and clinical years.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 disrupted undergraduate clinical education when medical schools removed students from clinical rotations following AAMC recommendations. Clerkship directors (CDs) had to adapt rapidly and modify clerkship curricula. However, the scope and effects of these modifications are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of the initial phase of COVID-19 on the internal medicine (IM) undergraduate clinical education. DESIGN: A nationally representative web survey. PARTICIPANTS: IM CDs from 137 LCME-accredited US medical schools in 2020. MAIN MEASURES: Items (80) assessed clerkship structure and curriculum, assessment in clerkships, post-clerkship IM clinical experiences, and CD roles and support. The framework of Understanding CrisisResponse (Royal Society for Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce) was used to determine whether curricular modifications were "amplified," "restarted," "let go," or "ended." KEY RESULTS: Response rate was 74%. In response to COVID-19, 32% (32/101) of clerkships suspended all clinical activities and 66% (67/101) only in-person. Prior to clinical disruption, students spent a median of 8.0 weeks (IQR: 2) on inpatient and 2.0 weeks (IQR: 4) on ambulatory rotations; during clinical re-entry, students were spending 5.0 (IQR: 3) and 1.0 (IQR: 2) weeks, respectively. Bedside teaching and physical exam instruction were "let go" during the early phase. Students were removed from direct patient care for a median of 85.5 days. The sub-internship curriculum remained largely unaffected. Before the pandemic, 11% of schools were using a pass/fail grading system; at clinical re-entry 47% and during the survey period 23% were using it. Due to the pandemic, 78.2% of CDs assumed new roles or had expanded responsibilities; 51% reported decreased scholarly productivity. CONCLUSIONS: Curricular adaptations occurred in IM clerkships across US medical schools as a result of COVID-19. More research is needed to explore the longterm implications of these changes on medical student education and clinical learning environments.

AAIM is the largest academically focused specialty organization representing departments of internal medicine at medical schools and teaching hospitals in the United States and Canada. As a consortium of five organizations, AAIM represents department chairs and chiefs; clerkship, residency, and fellowship program directors; division chiefs; and academic and business administrators as well as other faculty and staff in departments of internal medicine and their divisions.

No abstract

Introduction The residency application process is a critical time for medical students. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted changes to the residency recruitment procedures with the conversion of interviews to a virtual format. For medical school advisors guiding students on an all-virtual residency application process brought uncertainty to their advising practices. Thus, this study aimed to identify advising practices during the 2021 virtual application cycle. Methods We administered an IRB-exempt national survey through the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine to 186 internal medicine core/co-/associate/assistant clerkship directors and sub-internship directors representing 140 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited U.S./U.S.-territory-based medical schools in spring 2021. The 23-question survey was designed and pilot-tested by faculty-educators and leaders with expertise in undergraduate medical education. Data analysis included paired t- and z-tests and thematic analysis of open-ended questions. Results The institutional response rate was 67% (93/140) and individual rate 55% (103/186). Half of the respondents felt prepared/very prepared (40% and 13% respectively) for their advising roles. Compared to pre-pandemic cycles, respondents advised a typical student in the middle-third of their class at their institution to apply to more residency programs (mean 24 programs vs 20, p < 0.001) and accept more interviews (mean 14 interviews vs 12, p < 0.001). Sixty-three percent (64/101) of respondents spent more time on student advising; 51% (51/101) reported more students asked them for informal advice. Fifty-nine percent (60/101) of respondents reported their advisees were able to assess a residency program ‘somewhat well;’ 31% (31/101) expressed that residency recruitment should remain entirely virtual in the future. Conclusion The transition to virtual residency recruitment due to COVID-19 prompted advising practices that may have contributed to application inflation and increased advising workload. Future studies should explore longitudinal outcomes of virtual interviews on student success to guide best practices in how to advise students during residency recruitment.