Medical Education's Wicked Problem: Achieving Equity in Assessment for Medical Learners

Abrasion: a phenomenological study of inequity in workplace-based assessment in pediatrics

Despite the centrality of workplace-based assessments in medical education and practice, there is troubling evidence that workplace-based assessments are inequitable. This study investigated the experience of inequity in workplace-based assessment via a phenomenological study with learners (resident physicians) and assessors (physician supervisors) in one specialty in the United States, general pediatrics, from August 2023-June 2024. The authors used critical phenomenology to prompt and iteratively analyze participants' experiences with inequity in workplace-based assessment and their lifeworlds. To understand participants' lifeworlds, the authors applied Collins' domains of power framework to examine participants' varied and unique locations within intersecting power relations. Participants described the phenomenon of inequity in workplace-based assessment as a type of abrasion, that is, an injury caused by friction that occurred when a workplace-based assessment excoriated their sense of self. Abrasion had three dimensions: physical, affective, and temporal. These findings suggest that inequity in workplace-based assessment cannot be tracked solely by measuring disparities in numbers, grades, differences in narrative language used in comments, and other common measures of inequity, rather, it can be characterized as an experienced, felt, phenomenon that has essential dimensions. These findings have major implications for how inequity is conceptualized and intervened upon in medical education.

Clarifying and expanding equity in assessment by considering three orientations: Fairness, inclusion and justice

CONTEXT

Despite increasing discussion and scholarship, equity in assessment is rarely defined and distinguished in a way that allows for shared understanding in medical education. This paper seeks to clarify and expand the conversation about equity in assessment by critically reviewing three distinct and evolving orientations toward equity in assessment. Orientations refers to the positions, attitudes, interests or priorities individuals can hold toward equity in assessment. The three orientations include fairness-oriented assessment, assessment for inclusion and justice-oriented assessment. While fairness-oriented assessment is a prevailing orientation in medical education, assessment for inclusion and justice-oriented assessment, originally developed in other fields of education, deserve careful consideration.

METHODS

In this paper, the authors explore unique underpinning assumptions of each orientation by critically examining the foundational literature of each orientation. They reflect on the unique perspectives each orientation provides, including the actions one might take and what advantages and disadvantages might result from looking at equity in assessment from any one orientation.

CONCLUSIONS

Informed by this reflection, the authors propose that to more effectively advance equity in assessment in medical education, those working in the field should clearly identify their respective orientations, intentionally choose methods, tools and measures aligned with their orientations and expand their work by exploring alternative orientations.

Influence of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender on Clinical Performance Assessments in Graduate Medical Education

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests disparities associated with race and ethnicity (R&E) in assessment in graduate medical education (GME). How these disparities manifest across competencies and training time and intersect with disparities associated with other factors such as gender is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the association of R&E and gender with clinical performance assessment in GME.

DESIGN

Longitudinal analysis of resident clinical performance assessments.

PARTICIPANTS

Assessment data of residents at seven internal medicine (IM) residency programs, 2014 to 2019 (9346 evaluations of 664 residents). Residents underrepresented in medicine (URiM) were identified using self-reported R&E.

MAIN MEASURES

Standardized scores were calculated for the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies (patient care [PC], medical knowledge [MK], practice-based learning and improvement [PBLI], systems-based practice [SBP], professionalism [PROF], and interpersonal communication and skills [ICS]). Cross-classified mixed effects regression assessed differences in standardized competency ratings with R&E over time and the interaction of R&E and gender while controlling for time of year and setting; resident gender, post-graduate year (PGY), and IM in-training examination percentile rank; and faculty gender, educational role, specialty, rank, and years of experience.

KEY RESULTS

URiM resident scores were lower than non-URIM residents across competencies (difference in standardized scores between URiM and non-URiM residents [se] PC - 0.126 [0.035], p < 0.001; MK - 0.118 [0.035], p < 0.001; PBLI - 0.122 [0.042], p = 0.004; SBP - 0.128 [0.034], p < 0.001; PROF - 0.075 [0.036], p = 0.036; ICS - 0.124 [0.039], p = 0.002). The interaction between resident R&E, gender, and PGY was significant in PBLI (estimate - 0.15 [0.06], p = 0.02) and SBP (- 0.11 [0.05], p = 0.04) indicating smaller gains over time for URiM women.

CONCLUSIONS

There were significant differences associated with R&E with lower scores for URiM residents across competencies. There was a significant interaction with resident gender and R&E over time in PBLI and SBP. Findings may reflect bias in faculty assessment, effects of non-inclusive learning environments, or structural inequities in assessment.

Co-Designing a Justice-Oriented Assessment System in a Pediatric Residency Program: Report from the Designing for Equity in Medical Education Project

Background and Need for Innovation

There is a large body of evidence that assessment systems in medical education are inequitable for many groups of learners. A common approach to improve equity has been the use of organizational strategies, where training program leaders work to develop and implement improvements in existing assessment systems from their perspective to improve equity. However, emerging assessment approaches, such as justice-oriented assessment, argue that assessment systems must be made more equitable by critique and re-building through co-design with learners, assessors, and other key users. Little is known about how to apply these methods to workplace-based assessment in medical education.

Goal of Innovation

To fill the knowledge gap about how to co-design a more equitable, justice-oriented, workplace-based assessment system in pediatric post-graduate medical education.

Steps taken for Development and Implementation of innovation

Using the Design Justice framework, the authors completed 4 of the 5 phases of Design Thinking to co-design with learners and other users a workplace-based assessment system in their institution's pediatric residency program.

Evaluation of Innovation

To understand whether and how Design Justice principles were present and operationalized in the process of co-designing the assessment system, the authors evaluated the design activities in each phase of the Design Thinking process, the outputs of the design process, and the experiences of participating users.

Critical Reflection

Evidence of Design Justice principles included participants' feelings of being heard, affirmed, and empowered, as well as the design teams' iterative, critical reflection on making the project accessible, accountable, sustainable, and collaborative. This project offers a practical example of co-designing a justice-oriented assessment system, the process and principles of which can inform the efforts of advancing equity in assessment.

Blind spots in medical education - International perspectives

BACKGROUND

All individuals and groups have blind spots that can create problems if unaddressed. The goal of this study was to examine blind spots in medical education from international perspectives.

METHODS

From December 2022 to March 2023, we distributed an electronic survey through international networks of medical students, postgraduate trainees, and medical educators. Respondents named blind spots affecting their medical education system and then rated nine blind spot domains from a study of U.S. medical education along five-point Likert-type scales (1 = much less attention needed; 5 = much more attention needed). We tested for differences between blind spot ratings by respondent groups. We also analyzed the blind spots that respondents identified to determine those not previously described and performed content analysis on open-ended responses about blind spot domains.

RESULTS

There were 356 respondents from 88 countries, including 127 (44%) educators, 80 (28%) medical students, and 33 (11%) postgraduate trainees. At least 80% of respondents rated each blind spot domain as needing 'more' or 'much more' attention; the highest was 88% for 'Patient perspectives and voices that are not heard, valued, or understood.' In analyses by gender, role in medical education, World Bank country income level, and region, a mean difference of 0.5 was seen in only five of the possible 279 statistical comparisons. Of 885 blind spots documented, new blind spot areas related to issues that crossed national boundaries (e.g. international standards) and the sufficiency of resources to support medical education. Comments about the nine blind spot domains illustrated that cultural, health system, and governmental elements influenced how blind spots are manifested across different settings.

DISCUSSION

There may be general agreement throughout the world about blind spots in medical education that deserve more attention. This could establish a basis for coordinated international effort to allocate resources and tailor interventions that advance medical education.

On Seeing Long Shadows: Is Academic Medicine at its Core a Practice of Racial Oppression?

Suggestions that academic medicine is systemically racist are increasingly common in the medical literature. Such suggestions often rely upon expansive notions of systemic racism that are deeply controversial. The author argues for an empirical concept of systemic racism and offers a counter argument to a recent suggestion that academic medicine is systemically racist in its treatment of medical trainees: Anderson et al.'s (Academic Medicine, 98(8S), S28-S36, 2023) "The Long Shadow: a Historical Perspective on Racism in Medical Education." Contra the authors of "The Long Shadow," the author argues that racial performance disparities in medical education cannot be validly attributed to racism without careful empirical confirmation; he further argues that standards of assessment in medical education cannot be properly deemed racist merely because minority trainees are disproportionately disadvantaged by them. Furthermore, the history of medicine and society in the Anglo-European West is not, as argued by the authors of "The Long Shadow," best viewed as one long tale of racial oppression culminating in the present day pervasive racism of academic medicine in the United States. Racism is a deplorable stain on our history and our present but it is not the historical essence of Christianity, European civilization, Western medicine, or contemporary academic medical institutions.

Academic success in undergraduate nursing education: An integrative review

AIMS

The aim of this review was to synthesize and appraise the available literature regarding academic success in undergraduate nursing education.

DESIGN

We used Whittemore and Knafl's five-stage framework for integrative reviews. Toronto and Remington's step-by-step guide to integrative reviews provided practical guidance in the review process.

DATA SOURCES

A search was employed to retrieve relevant scholarly, peer-reviewed, English-language articles published between 2003 and 2023 using the databases APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Education Research Complete, and MEDLINE.

REVIEW METHODS

The initial search located 2599 articles. After duplicate screening at title and abstract and full text levels using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 40 articles were selected for inclusion. All included articles were critically appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for empirical studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools for the reviews and the theoretical papers.

RESULTS

A review and synthesis of the articles revealed preadmission factors can impact academic success in undergraduate nursing education. However, most authors used narrow measures of success such as on-time graduation and exam performance. In most articles performance in the clinical environment was not considered measured as part of academic success. Few empirical studies used a theoretical framework, and the overall methodological quality of the included articles was mixed.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest a gap in the literature regarding more inclusive approaches to measuring academic success in undergraduate nursing education. The dearth of qualitative studies and limited attention to how academic success is measured in the clinical learning environment suggest future research should focus on exploring student nurses' perceptions of success. Furthermore, researchers examining this topic are encouraged to utilize suitable theoretical frameworks to guide empirical studies.

From othering to belonging: a framework for DEI history-telling and strategising

The medical profession in the USA is-and has long been-a segregated workforce. Currently, just 5.0% of all US physicians are black. Understanding the origins and mechanisms of this disparity is essential to creating a future where black healing and healers are supported by our medical system. In pursuit of this future, this article offers 'othering' and 'belonging' as frames of analysis and intervention for diversity and equity initiatives.Building on previous historical studies of racism in medicine, this project reveals how the figure of the 'American physician' was created through exclusionary/othering tactics. In part 1, we analyse antebellum historical sources to demonstrate the role of medicine in creating and promulgating racial categories and hierarchies. Next, in part 2, we explore the historical conditions that produced the American physician as a significant professional identity by analysing texts by the American Medical Association and affiliated state medical societies. Then, we turn towards solutions in part 3. To redress inequities produced by othering, particularly the continued exclusion of black people from the medical profession, we argue that medical leaders should cultivate a professional culture of belonging. As we will explain, belonging goes beyond tolerating and respecting difference; it entails shared culture, equal rights and inclusive structures.

Using Group Concept Mapping to Explore Medical Education's Blind Spots

PHENOMENON

All individuals and groups have blind spots that can lead to mistakes, perpetuate biases, and limit innovations. The goal of this study was to better understand how blind spots manifest in medical education by seeking them out in the U.S.

APPROACH

We conducted group concept mapping (GCM), a research method that involves brainstorming ideas, sorting them according to conceptual similarity, generating a point map that represents consensus among sorters, and interpreting the cluster maps to arrive at a final concept map. Participants in this study were stakeholders from the U.S. medical education system (i.e., learners, educators, administrators, regulators, researchers, and commercial resource producers) and those from the broader U.S. health system (i.e., patients, nurses, public health professionals, and health system administrators). All participants brainstormed ideas to the focus prompt: "To educate physicians who can meet the health needs of patients in the U.S. health system, medical education should become less blind to (or pay more attention to) …" Responses to this prompt were reviewed and synthesized by our study team to prepare them for sorting, which was done by a subset of participants from the medical education system. GCM software combined sorting solutions using a multidimensional scaling analysis to produce a point map and performed cluster analyses to generate cluster solution options. Our study team reviewed and interpreted all cluster solutions from five to 25 clusters to decide upon the final concept map.

FINDINGS

Twenty-seven stakeholders shared 298 blind spots during brainstorming. To decrease redundancy, we reduced these to 208 in preparation for sorting. Ten stakeholders independently sorted the blind spots, and the final concept map included 9 domains and 72 subdomains of blind spots that related to (1) admissions processes; (2) teaching practices; (3) assessment and curricular designs; (4) inequities in education and health; (5) professional growth and identity formation; (6) patient perspectives; (7) teamwork and leadership; (8) health systems care models and financial practices; and (9) government and business policies.

INSIGHTS

Soliciting perspectives from diverse stakeholders to identify blind spots in medical education uncovered a wide array of issues that deserve more attention. The concept map may also be used to help prioritize resources and direct interventions that can stimulate change and bring medical education into better alignment with the health needs of patients and communities.

Inclusive assessment in health professions education: Balancing global goals and local contexts

CONTEXT

In this article, we draw upon diverse and contextually different experiences of working on inclusive assessment, with the aim of bridging and enhancing practices of inclusive assessments for health professions education (HPE) within universities. Instead of juxtaposing our views from three countries, we combine our perspectives to advocate for inclusive assessment.

DISCUSSION

Creating an inclusive assessment culture is important for equitable education, even if priorities for inclusion might differ between contexts. We recognise challenges in the enactment of inclusive assessment, namely, the notion of lowering standards, harming reliability and robustness of assessment design and inclusion as a poorly defined and catchall term. Importantly, the lack of awareness that inclusion means recognising intersectionality is a barrier for well-designed inclusive assessments. This is why we offer considerations for HPE practitioners that can guide towards a unified direction of travel for inclusive assessments. This article highlights the importance of contextual prioritisation and initiatives to be considered at the global level to national, institutional, programme and the individual level. Utilising experience and literature from undergraduate, higher education contexts, we offer considerations with applicability across the assessment continuum.

CONTEXT

In this state of science paper, we were set the challenge of providing cross-cultural viewpoints on inclusive assessment. In this discursive article, we focus on inclusive assessment within undergraduate health professions education whilst looking to the wider higher education literature, since institutional policies and procedures frequently drive assessment decisions and influence the environment in which they occur. We explore our experiences of working in inclusive assessment, with the aim of bridging and enhancing practices of inclusive assessments for HPE. Unlike other articles that juxtapose views, we all come from the perspective of supporting inclusive assessment. We begin with a discussion on what inclusive assessment is and then describe our contexts as a basis for understanding differences and broadening conversations. We work in the United Kingdom, Australia and Malaysia, having undertaken research, facilitated workshops and seminars on inclusive assessment nationally and internationally. We recognise our perspectives will differ as a consequence of our global context, institutional culture, individual characteristics and educational experiences. (Note that individual characteristics are also known as protected characteristics in some countries). Then, we outline challenges and opportunities associated with inclusive assessment, drawing on evidence within our contexts, acknowledging that our understanding of inclusive assessment research is limited to publications in English and currently tilted to publications from the Global North. In the final section, we then offer recommendations for championing inclusion, focussing firstly on assessment designs, and then broader considerations to organise collective action. Our article is unapologetically practical; the deliberate divergence from a theoretical piece is with the intent that anyone who reads this paper might enact even one small change progressing towards more inclusive assessment practices within their context.

Recommendations to address and research systemic bias in assessment: perspectives from directors of research in medical education

INTRODUCTION

Addressing systemic bias in medical school assessment is an urgent task for medical education. This paper outlines recommendations on topic areas for further research on systemic bias, developed from a workshop discussion at the 2023 annual meeting of the Society of Directors of Research in Medical Education.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During the workshop, directors engaged in small-group discussions on guidelines to address bias in assessment practices following a proposed categorization of 'Do's,' 'Don'ts,' and 'Don't knows' and listed their insights using anonymous sticky notes, which were shared and discussed with the larger group of participants. The authors performed a content analysis of the notes through deductive and inductive coding. We reviewed and discussed our analysis to reach consensus.

RESULTS

The workshop included 31 participants from 28 institutions across the US and Canada, generating 51 unique notes. Participants identified 23 research areas in need of further study. The inductive analysis of proposed research areas revealed four main topics: 1) The role of interventions, including pre-medical academic interventions, medical-education interventions, assessment approaches, and wellness interventions; 2) Professional development, including the definition and assessment of professionalism and professional identity formation; 3) Context, including patient care and systemic influences; and 4) Research approaches.

DISCUSSION

While limited to data from a single workshop, the results offered perspectives about areas for further research shared by a group of directors of medical education research units from diverse backgrounds. The workshop produced valuable insights into the need for more evidence-based interventions that promote more equitable assessment practices grounded in real-world situations and that attenuate the effects of bias.

Assessing supervisor versus trainee viewpoints of entrustment through cognitive and affective lenses: an artificial intelligence investigation of bias in feedback

The entrustment framework redirects assessment from considering only trainees' competence to decision-making about their readiness to perform clinical tasks independently. Since trainees and supervisors both contribute to entrustment decisions, we examined the cognitive and affective factors that underly their negotiation of trust, and whether trainee demographic characteristics may bias them. Using a document analysis approach, we adapted large language models (LLMs) to examine feedback dialogs (N = 24,187, each with an associated entrustment rating) between medical student trainees and their clinical supervisors. We compared how trainees and supervisors differentially documented feedback dialogs about similar tasks by identifying qualitative themes and quantitatively assessing their correlation with entrustment ratings. Supervisors' themes predominantly reflected skills related to patient presentations, while trainees' themes were broader-including clinical performance and personal qualities. To examine affect, we trained an LLM to measure feedback sentiment. On average, trainees used more negative language (5.3% lower probability of positive sentiment, p < 0.05) compared to supervisors, while documenting higher entrustment ratings (+ 0.08 on a 1-4 scale, p < 0.05). We also found biases tied to demographic characteristics: trainees' documentation reflected more positive sentiment in the case of male trainees (+ 1.3%, p < 0.05) and of trainees underrepresented in medicine (UIM) (+ 1.3%, p < 0.05). Entrustment ratings did not appear to reflect these biases, neither when documented by trainee nor supervisor. As such, bias appeared to influence the emotive language trainees used to document entrustment more than the degree of entrustment they experienced. Mitigating these biases is nonetheless important because they may affect trainees' assimilation into their roles and formation of trusting relationships.

Advancing Equity in Assessment in the Surgical Learning Environment

IMPORTANCE

Assessment is a fundamental part of teaching and learning that provides the basis for making inferences about the development of learners. Inequity in assessment disproportionately impacts underrepresented in medicine learners and can limit their opportunities for achievement.

OBSERVATIONS

Unfortunately, inequity in assessment is prevalent in the surgical learning environment due to systemic and individual factors. The Antideficit Achievement framework can be effectively applied to address sources of inequity.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This paper explores sources of inequity in assessment in the surgical learning environment and illuminates them with a descriptive case study. Recommendations created using the Antideficit Achievement framework provide effective, practical ways to begin to advance equity in assessment in the surgical learning environment.

Knowledge Mapping and Global Trends in the Field of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination: Bibliometric and Visual Analysis (2004-2023)

BACKGROUND

The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a pivotal tool for assessing health care professionals and plays an integral role in medical education.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to map the bibliometric landscape of OSCE research, highlighting trends and key influencers.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted for materials related to OSCE from January 2004 to December 2023, using the Web of Science Core Collection database. Bibliometric analysis and visualization were performed with VOSviewer and CiteSpace software tools.

RESULTS

Our analysis indicates a consistent increase in OSCE-related publications over the study period, with a notable surge after 2019, culminating in a peak of activity in 2021. The United States emerged as a significant contributor, responsible for 30.86% (1626/5268) of total publications and amassing 44,051 citations. Coauthorship network analysis highlighted robust collaborations, particularly between the United States and the United Kingdom. Leading journals in this domain-BMC Medical Education, Medical Education, Academic Medicine, and Medical Teacher-featured the highest volume of papers, while The Lancet garnered substantial citations, reflecting its high impact factor (to be verified for accuracy). Prominent authors in the field include Sondra Zabar, Debra Pugh, Timothy J Wood, and Susan Humphrey-Murto, with Ronaldo M Harden, Brian D Hodges, and George E Miller being the most cited. The analysis of key research terms revealed a focus on "education," "performance," "competence," and "skills," indicating these are central themes in OSCE research.

CONCLUSIONS

The study underscores a dynamic expansion in OSCE research and international collaboration, spotlighting influential countries, institutions, authors, and journals. These elements are instrumental in steering the evolution of medical education assessment practices and suggest a trajectory for future research endeavors. Future work should consider the implications of these findings for medical education and the potential areas for further investigation, particularly in underrepresented regions or emerging competencies in health care training.

Validity in the Next Era of Assessment: Consequences, Social Impact, and Equity

Validity has long held a venerated place in education, leading some authors to refer to it as the "sine qua non" or "cardinal virtue" of assessment. And yet, validity has not held a fixed meaning; rather it has shifted in its definition and scope over time. In this Eye Opener, the authors explore if and how current conceptualizations of validity fit a next era of assessment that prioritizes patient care and learner equity. They posit that health profession education's conceptualization of validity will change in three related but distinct ways. First, consequences of assessment decisions will play a central role in validity arguments. Second, validity evidence regarding impacts of assessment on patients and society will be prioritized. Third, equity will be seen as part of validity rather than an unrelated concept. The authors argue that health professions education has the agency to change its ideology around validity, and to align with values that predominate the next era of assessment such as high-quality care and equity for learners and patients.

Impact of Racism on the Diversification of the Pediatric Workforce

This narrative review examines the impact of racism in academic pediatrics. We begin with our challenges in diversifying the pediatric physician workforce and the downstream impact of selection and recruitment practices compounded by disparities in resident dismissal rates. We present best practices in recruitment and resources from academic societies and institutions, including examples of successful holistic review processes. We then shift our focus to the effect of racism on the clinical learning environment and the use of race in curricular materials, clinical research reports, and practice guidelines. We discuss the need to create new guidelines for the inclusion of race in teaching materials and strategies to teach residents to critically interrogate clinical practice guidelines. Ultimately, we examine how racism impacts retention for faculty. We present the demographics of underrepresented in medicine faculty, the impact of racism in the work environment on attrition and mentorship, and where national programs are working to fill the gaps.

Advancing anti-oppression and social justice in healthcare through competency-based medical education (CBME)

Competency-based medical education (CBME) focuses on preparing physicians to improve the health of patients and populations. In the context of ongoing health disparities worldwide, medical educators must implement CBME in ways that advance social justice and anti-oppression. In this article, authors describe how CBME can be implemented to promote equity pedagogy, an approach to education in which curricular design, teaching, assessment strategies, and learning environments support learners from diverse groups to be successful. The five core components of CBME programs - outcomes competency framework, progressive sequencing of competencies, learning experiences tailored to learners' needs, teaching focused on competencies, and programmatic assessment - enable individualization of learning experiences and teaching and encourage learners to partner with their teachers in driving their learning. These educational approaches appreciate each learner's background, experiences, and strengths. Using an exemplar case study, the authors illustrate how CBME can afford opportunities to enhance anti-oppression and social justice in medical education and promote each learner's success in meeting the expected outcomes of training. The authors provide recommendations for individuals and institutions implementing CBME to enact equity pedagogy.

Is There a Problem With Evidence in Health Professions Education?

ABSTRACT

What constitutes evidence, what value evidence has, and how the needs of knowledge producers and those who consume this knowledge might be better aligned are questions that continue to challenge the health sciences. In health professions education (HPE), debates on these questions have ebbed and flowed with little sense of resolution or progress. In this article, the authors explore whether there is a problem with evidence in HPE using thought experiments anchored in Argyris' learning loops framework.From a single-loop perspective ("How are we doing?"), there may be many problems with evidence in HPE, but little is known about how research evidence is being used in practice and policy. A double-loop perspective ("Could we do better?") suggests expectations of knowledge producers and knowledge consumers might be too high, which suggests more system-wide approaches to evidence-informed practice in HPE are needed. A triple-loop perspective ("Are we asking the right questions?") highlights misalignments between the dynamics of research and decision-making, such that scholarly inquiry may be better approached as a way of advancing broader conversations, rather than contributing to specific decision-making processes.The authors ask knowledge producers and consumers to be more attentive to the translation from knowledge to evidence. They also argue for more systematic tracking and audit of how research knowledge is used as evidence. Given that research does not always have to serve practical purposes or address the problems of a particular program or institution, the relationship between knowledge and evidence should be understood in terms of changing conversations and influencing decisions.

Are Pre-clerkship Remediation, Grading, and Reporting Practices Equitable in the U.S.? A National Survey

Phenomenon: With the proliferation of pass/fail grading practices in the pre-clerkship phase of undergraduate medical education, questions arise about the transparency and variability of grading and grade reporting practices, raising issues of equity in assessment, particularly regarding residency matching. The purpose of this survey was to determine the remediation and academic performance reporting practices of United States (U.S.) allopathic medical schools in the pre-clerkship phase of their curricula. Approach: After an extensive literature search and feedback from curriculum deans and learning experts, we developed a survey that we sent in the Spring of 2022 to pre-clerkship curriculum officials at all 154 accredited U.S. allopathic medical schools. It addressed curriculum content and structure; pre-clerkship remediation (e.g., course retakes) and reporting (e.g., permanency of transcript notation) practices; documentation and reporting of nonacademic competencies; and participant opinions and recommendations regarding reporting, transparency, and equity. We generated descriptive statistics and did manifest coding of open-ended responses. Findings: We had a response rate of 40% (62/155), with over 71% indicating mainly organ systems-based curricula. Depending on the situation, there were a wide range of remediation approaches for single- and multiple-course failures, including tutoring or learning support, re-exams, and referrals to a promotion board. Professionalism concerns were a top priority to report to residency directors, with significant variability in respondent opinions and practices in reporting remedial activities. Respondents were concerned about equity, both in terms of flexible grading practices and transparency of reporting practices. Insights: The variability in reporting practices across schools, while allowing holistic and individualized approaches to academic support, also creates potential inequities. More work is needed to understand how different reporting practices across institutions may disadvantage marginalized and minoritized student groups at different points in their preparation.

Through the Looking Glass: Comparing Hospitalists' and Internal Medicine Residents' Perceptions of Feedback

INTRODUCTION

Feedback is critical for resident growth and is most effective when the relationship between residents and attendings is collaborative, with shared expectations for the purpose, timing, and manner of communication for feedback. Within internal medicine, there is limited work exploring the resident and hospitalist perspectives on whether key elements are included in feedback sessions.

METHODS

We surveyed internal medicine residents and supervising hospitalists at a large urban training program about their perspectives on four components of effective feedback: specificity,timeliness, respectful communication, and actionability.

RESULTS

We received surveys from 130/184 internal medicine residents and 74/129 hospitalists (71% and 57% response rate, respectively). Residents and hospitalists differed in their perspectives about specificity and timeliness: 54% (70/129) of residents reported they did not receive specific feedback while 90% (65/72) of hospitalists reported they delivered specific feedback (p<0.01), and 33% (43/129) of residents compared with 82% (59/72) of hospitalists perceived feedback as timely (p<0.01). Internal medicine residents and hospitalists reported concordant rates of feedback sessions consisting of a two-way conversation (84%, 109/129; 89%, 64/72, respectively, p=0.82) and that communication was delivered in a respectful manner (95%, 122/129; 97%, 70/72, respectively, p=0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed discordance between internal medicine residents and supervising hospitalist perspectives on the inclusion of two critical components of feedback: specificity and timing. The hospitalist cohort reported delivering more components of effective feedback than the resident cohort reported receiving. The etiology of this discordance is likely multifactorial and requires further investigation.

Lessons From Organic Chemistry: The Case for Considering Both High Standards and Equity in Assessment

ABSTRACT

In this commentary, the authors explore the tension of balancing high performance standards in medical education with the acceptability of those standards to stakeholders (e.g., learners and patients). The authors then offer a lens through which this tension might be considered and ways forward that focus on both patient outcomes and learner needs.In examining this phenomenon, the authors argue that high performance standards are often necessary. Societal accountability is key to medical education, with the public demanding that training programs prepare physicians to provide high-quality care. Medical schools and residency programs, therefore, require rigorous standards to ensure graduates are ready to care for patients. At the same time, learners' experience is important to consider. Making sure that performance standards are acceptable to stakeholders supports the validity of assessment decisions.Equity should also be central to program evaluation and validity arguments when considering performance standards. Currently, learners across the continuum are variably prepared for the next phase in training and often face inequities in resource availability to meet high passing standards, which may lead to learner attrition. Many students who face these inequities come from underrepresented or disadvantaged backgrounds and are essential to ensuring a diverse medical workforce to meet the needs of patients and society. When these students struggle, it contributes to the leaky pipeline of more socioeconomically and racially diverse applicants.The authors posit that 4 key factors can balance the tension between high performance standards and stakeholder acceptability: standards that are acceptable and defensible, progression that is time variable, requisite support structures that are uniquely tailored for each learner, and assessment systems that are equitably designed.

'Yourself in all your forms': A grounded theory exploration of identity safety in medical students

INTRODUCTION

Identity threats, such as stereotype threat and microaggressions, impair learning and erode well-being. In contrast to identity threat, less is known about how learners experience feelings of safety regarding their identity. This exploratory study aims to develop a theory of identity safety in the clinical learning environment.

METHODS

This multi-institutional, qualitative interview study was informed by constructivist grounded theory and critical pedagogy. Participants were clinical students at three public medical schools in the United States in 2022. Investigators purposively sampled participants for interviews based on their responses to an 11-item survey with an open-ended question soliciting students' personal identities and responses to both the racial/ethnic and gender Stereotype Vulnerability Scales. The investigators interviewed, coded, constantly compared and continued sampling until the codes could be developed into categories, then concepts and finally into a theory. The team engaged in critical reflexivity throughout the analytic process to enrich data interpretations.

RESULTS

Sixteen diverse students were interviewed. We organised their identity-salient experiences into identity threat, threat mitigation and identity safety. Participants experienced identity threat through unwelcoming learning environments, feeling compelled to change their behaviour in inauthentic ways or sociopolitical threat. Threat mitigation occurred when a participant or supervisor intervened against an identity threat, dampening but not eliminating the threat impact. Participants characterised identity safety as the ability to exist as their authentic selves without feeling the need to monitor how others perceive their identities. Identity safety manifested when participants demonstrated agency to leverage their identities for patient care, when others upheld their personhood and saw them as unique individuals and when they felt they belonged in the learning environment.

DISCUSSION

Attending to identity safety may lead to educational practices that sustain and leverage team members' diverse identities. Identity safety and threat mitigation may work together to combat identity threats in the learning environment.

Inequity is woven into the fabric: a discourse analysis of assessment in pediatric residency training

Intrinsic inequity in assessment refers to sources of harmful discrimination inherent in the design of assessment tools and systems. This study seeks to understand intrinsic inequity in assessment systems by studying assessment policies and associated procedures in residency training, using general pediatrics as a discourse case study. Foucauldian discourse analysis (FDA) was conducted on assessment policy and procedure documents. Two authors independently prepared structured analytic notes using guiding questions. Documents and respective analytic notes were subsequently reviewed independently by all authors. Each author prepared further unstructured analytic notes on the documents' discourse. The authors then compared notes and constructed truth statements (i.e., interpretations of what the discourse establishes as true about the construct under study) and sub-strands (i.e., themes) that were repeated and legitimized across the documents via iterative discussion. Based on analysis, the authors constructed two truth statements. These truth statements, "good assessment is equitable assessment," and "everyone is responsible for inequity," conceptualized inequity in assessment as an isolated or individual-level aberration in an otherwise effective or neutral system. Closer examination of the truth statements and sub-strands in the discourse presented an alternative view, suggesting that inequity may in fact not be an aberration but rather an inherent feature of assessment systems.

What the hell is water? Changing medical education's ideology through validity

@Midwest_MedPeds and @DrDanSchumacher call for a "What the hell is water?" reckoning with #MedEd using academic excellence as a central selection metric

Differences in emergency medicine resident procedural reporting by race and ethnicity

Background

The recruitment, retention, and training of physicians from groups underrepresented in medicine (UiM) is critically important to the practice of emergency medicine (EM). Studies across specialties have demonstrated disparities in operative experiences among UiM resident learners who are UiM; however, there are limited data on procedural disparities in EM.

Objective

We sought to quantify the association between racial and ethnic identities that are UiM and the number of procedures reported among EM residents.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of procedural differences by UiM status (using self-identified race and ethnicity) among graduating EM residents at nine training programs over a 10-year period. Sites were selected to ensure diversity of program length, program type, and geography. Data from residents in combined training programs, those who did not complete their full training at that institution, and those with missing data or electing not to report race/ethnicity were excluded. We calculated median and interquartile ranges for each procedure by UiM status. We conducted multivariable regression analyses accounting for UiM status, gender, and site as well as a sensitivity analysis excluding values >3 standard deviations from the mean for each procedure.

Results

We collected data from 988 total residents, with 718 (73%) being non-UiM, 204 (21%) being UiM, 48 (5%) electing not to specific race/ethnicity, and 18 (2%) missing race/ethnicity data. While unadjusted data demonstrated a difference between UiM and non-UiM resident numbers across several procedures, there were no significant differences in procedures reported after accounting for gender and site in the primary or sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

We did not identify a statistically significant difference in reported procedures between UiM and non-UiM residents in EM. Future work should include qualitative investigations of UiM resident experience surrounding procedures as well as mixed-methods studies to examine how these data interact.

Racial disparities in the selection of chief resident: A cross-sectional analysis of a national sample of senior residents in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Part of the difficulty in recruiting and retaining a diverse physician workforce, as well as within medical leadership, is due to racial disparities in medical education. We investigated whether self-identified race-ethnicity is associated with the likelihood of selection as chief resident (CR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a cross sectional analysis using de-identified person-level data from the GME Track, a national resident database and tracking system, from 2015 through 2018. The exposure variable, self-identified race-ethnicity, was categorized as African American or Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Hispanic, Latino or of Spanish Origin, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, White, and Multi-racial. The primary study outcome was CR selection among respondents in their final program year. Logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of CR selection for each racial group, as compared to the White referent group.

RESULTS

Among the study population (N=121,247), Black, Asian and Hispanic race-ethnicity was associated with a significantly decreased odds of being selected as CR in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Black, Asian and Hispanic residents had a 26% (aOR=0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.83), 29% (aOR=0.71, 95% CI 0.66-0.76) and 28% (aOR=0.72, 95% CI 0.66-0.94) decreased likelihood of becoming CR, respectively. Multi-racial residents also had a decreased likelihood, but to a lesser degree (aOR=0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

In as much as CR is an honor that sets one up for future opportunity, our findings suggest that residents of color are disproportionately disadvantaged compared to their White peers.

Competency-based medical education: The spark to ignite healthcare's escape fire

High-value care is what patients deserve and what healthcare professionals should deliver. However, it is not what happens much of the time. Quality improvement master Dr. Don Berwick argued more than two decades ago that American healthcare needs an escape fire, which is a new way of seeing and acting in a crisis situation. While coined in the U.S. context, the analogy applies in other Western healthcare contexts as well. Therefore, in this paper, the authors revisit Berwick's analogy, arguing that medical education can, and should, provide the spark for such an escape fire across the globe. They assert that medical education can achieve this by fully embracing competency-based medical education (CBME) as a way to place medicine's focus on the patient. CBME targets training outcomes that prepare graduates to optimize patient care. The authors use the escape fire analogy to argue that medical educators must drop long-held approaches and tools; treat CBME implementation as an adaptive challenge rather than a technical fix; demand genuine, rich discussions and engagement about the path forward; and, above all, center the patient in all they do.

Adoption of Internal Medicine Milestone Ratings and Changes in Bias Against Black, Latino, and Asian Internal Medicine Residents

BACKGROUND

The 2014 adoption of the Milestone ratings system may have affected evaluation bias against minoritized groups.

OBJECTIVE

To assess bias in internal medicine (IM) residency knowledge ratings against Black or Latino residents-who are underrepresented in medicine (URiM)-and Asian residents before versus after Milestone adoption in 2014.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional and interrupted time-series comparisons.

SETTING

U.S. IM residencies.

PARTICIPANTS

59 835 IM residents completing residencies during 2008 to 2013 and 2015 to 2020.

INTERVENTION

Adoption of the Milestone ratings system.

MEASUREMENTS

Pre-Milestone (2008 to 2013) and post-Milestone (2015 to 2020) bias was estimated as differences in standardized knowledge ratings between U.S.-born and non-U.S.-born minoritized groups versus non-Latino U.S.-born White (NLW) residents, with adjustment for performance on the American Board of Internal Medicine IM certification examination and other physician characteristics. Interrupted time-series analysis measured deviations from pre-Milestone linear bias trends.

RESULTS

During the pre-Milestone period, ratings biases against minoritized groups were large (-0.40 SDs [95% CI, -0.48 to -0.31 SDs; P < 0.001] for URiM residents, -0.24 SDs [CI, -0.30 to -0.18 SDs; P < 0.001] for U.S.-born Asian residents, and -0.36 SDs [CI, -0.45 to -0.27 SDs; P < 0.001] for non-U.S.-born Asian residents). These estimates decreased to less than -0.15 SDs after adoption of Milestone ratings for all groups except U.S.-born Black residents, among whom substantial (though lower) bias persisted (-0.26 SDs [CI, -0.36 to -0.17 SDs; P < 0.001]). Substantial deviations from pre-Milestone linear bias trends coincident with adoption of Milestone ratings were also observed.

LIMITATIONS

Unobserved variables correlated with ratings bias and Milestone ratings adoption, changes in identification of race/ethnicity, and generalizability to Milestones 2.0.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge ratings bias against URiM and Asian residents was ameliorated with the adoption of the Milestone ratings system. However, substantial ratings bias against U.S.-born Black residents persisted.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

"Rater training" re-imagined for work-based assessment in medical education

In this perspective, the authors critically examine "rater training" as it has been conceptualized and used in medical education. By "rater training," they mean the educational events intended to improve rater performance and contributions during assessment events. Historically, rater training programs have focused on modifying faculty behaviours to achieve psychometric ideals (e.g., reliability, inter-rater reliability, accuracy). The authors argue these ideals may now be poorly aligned with contemporary research informing work-based assessment, introducing a compatibility threat, with no clear direction on how to proceed. To address this issue, the authors provide a brief historical review of "rater training" and provide an analysis of the literature examining the effectiveness of rater training programs. They focus mainly on what has served to define effectiveness or improvements. They then draw on philosophical and conceptual shifts in assessment to demonstrate why the function, effectiveness aims, and structure of rater training requires reimagining. These include shifting competencies for assessors, viewing assessment as a complex cognitive task enacted in a social context, evolving views on biases, and reprioritizing which validity evidence should be most sought in medical education. The authors aim to advance the discussion on rater training by challenging implicit incompatibility issues and stimulating ways to overcome them. They propose that "rater training" (a moniker they suggest be reserved for strong psychometric aims) be augmented with "assessor readiness" programs that link to contemporary assessment science and enact the principle of compatibility between that science and ways of engaging with advances in real-world faculty-learner contexts.

Usability of ENTRUST as an Assessment Tool for Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs): A Mixed Methods Analysis

OBJECTIVE

As the American Board of Surgery transitions to a competency-based model of surgical education centered upon entrustable professional activities (EPAs), there is a growing need for objective tools to determine readiness for entrustment. This study evaluates the usability of ENTRUST, an innovative virtual patient simulation platform to assess surgical trainees' decision-making skills in preoperative, intra-operative, and post-operative settings.

DESIGN

This is a mixed-methods analysis of the usability of the ENTRUST platform. Quantitative data was collected using the system usability scale (SUS) and Likert responses. Analysis was performed with descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariable linear regression. Qualitative analysis of open-ended responses was performed using the Nielsen-Shneiderman Heuristics framework.

SETTING

This study was conducted at an academic institution in a proctored exam setting.

PARTICIPANTS

The analysis includes n = 47 (PGY 1-5) surgical residents who completed an online usability survey following the ENTRUST Inguinal Hernia EPA Assessment.

RESULTS

The ENTRUST platform had a median SUS score of 82.5. On bivariate and multivariate analyses, there were no significant differences between usability based on demographic characteristics (all p > 0.05), and SUS score was independent of ENTRUST performance (r = 0.198, p = 0.18). Most participants agreed that the clinical workup of the patient was engaging (91.5%) and felt realistic (85.1%). The most frequent heuristics represented in the qualitative analysis included feedback, visibility, match, and control. Additional themes of educational value, enjoyment, and ease-of-use highlighted participants' perspectives on the usability of ENTRUST.

CONCLUSIONS

ENTRUST demonstrates high usability in this population. Usability was independent of ENTRUST score performance and there were no differences in usability identified in this analysis based on demographic subgroups. Qualitative analysis highlighted the acceptability of ENTRUST and will inform ongoing development of the platform. The ENTRUST platform holds potential as a tool for the assessment of EPAs in surgical residency programs.

URM: Underrepresented or Underrecognized? A Case Study of Black Pediatric Critical Care Physicians

PURPOSE

This study explored Black physicians' experience via an antideficit lens to gain new ideas for advancing minoritized physicians in academic medicine more broadly. Increasingly, systemic racism in academic medicine is intentionally acknowledged and named. However, many solutions to tackle racism and the overall paucity of Black physicians use a deficit framing, painting Black physicians and trainees as lacking preparation, interest, or experience and qualifications. Such solutions aim to help Black people assimilate into the "White Space" of academic medicine, rather than focusing on Black people's strengths.

METHOD

This qualitative study included 15 Black physicians and trainees in pediatric critical care medicine (PCCM) from across the country who participated in semistructured interviews. Through an antideficit lens, the researchers examined the social, cultural, and structural contexts influencing the participants' individual experiences. They analyzed the data combining thematic and narrative qualitative analysis approaches, including restorying.

RESULTS

The data help promote understanding of the landscape and context in which Black PCCM physicians become successful. Achievement took on different forms for the participants. Participants described enablers of achievement that supported them through their individual journeys spanning 3 general domains-intrinsic, interpersonal, and systemic. Three additional enablers were tied specifically to participants' Black identities-harnessing Blackness as a superpower, leaning in to lead, and successfully navigating the "unwritten rules."

CONCLUSIONS

By using an antideficit framework, this study delineates and centers participants' ingenuity in cultivating repertoires of practice that enabled them to succeed, despite challenges rooted in systemic racism. Going forward, rather than focus solely on what is missing, academic medicine should try to shift systems and regularly recognize and value the knowledge, expertise, and merit Black that physicians bring. Perhaps an appropriate framing is not that Black physicians are underrepresented in medicine; maybe instead, it is that they are underrecognized.

Developing Evidence for Equitable Assessment Characteristics Based on Clinical Learner Preferences Using Discrete Choice Experiments

PURPOSE

Medical education is only beginning to explore the factors that contribute to equitable assessment in clinical settings. Increasing knowledge about equitable assessment ensures a quality medical education experience that produces an excellent, diverse physician workforce equipped to address the health care disparities facing patients and communities. Through the lens of the Anti-Deficit Achievement framework, the authors aimed to obtain evidence for a model for equitable assessment in clinical training.

METHOD

A discrete choice experiment approach was used which included an instrument with 6 attributes each at 2 levels to reveal learner preferences for the inclusion of each attribute in equitable assessment. Self-identified underrepresented in medicine (UIM) and not underrepresented in medicine (non-UIM) (N = 306) fourth-year medical students and senior residents in medicine, pediatrics, and surgery at 9 institutions across the United States completed the instrument. A mixed-effects logit model was used to determine attributes learners valued most.

RESULTS

Participants valued the inclusion of all assessment attributes provided except for peer comparison. The most valued attribute of an equitable assessment was how learner identity, background, and trajectory were appreciated by clinical supervisors. The next most valued attributes were assessment of growth, supervisor bias training, narrative assessments, and assessment of learner's patient care, with participants willing to trade off any of the attributes to get several others. There were no significant differences in value placed on assessment attributes between UIM and non-UIM learners. Residents valued clinical supervisors valuing learner identity, background, and trajectory and clinical supervisor bias training more so than medical students.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers support for the components of an antideficit-focused model for equity in assessment and informs efforts to promote UIM learner success and guide equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives in medical education.

Is it Time for Competency-Based Education to Move Forward in Pharmacy Education?

Competency-based education is rapidly emerging as a paradigmatic shift in health professions education, as we grapple with the realities of ever-changing and increasing demands of society and health systems. While pharmacy educators are becoming more familiar with this paradigm, colleagues in medical education have been exploring models and methods of competency-based education for many years, and their experiences can be illuminating for us. The persistent question that drives continuous quality improvement in pharmacy education and the development of initiatives within American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy might be stated as "Is there a better (more effective, more efficient) way to prepare pharmacists (future and current) to meet the medication-related needs of the public?"

Whiteness theory and the (in)visible hierarchy in medical education

CONTEXT

The theory of whiteness in medical education has largely been ignored, yet its power continues to influence learners within our medical curricula and our patients and trainees within our health systems. Its influence is even more powerful given the fact that society maintains a 'possessive investment' in its presence. In combination, these (in)visible forces create environments that favour White individuals at the exclusion of all others, and as health professions educators and researchers, we have the responsibility to uncover how and why these influences continue to pervade medical education.

PROPOSAL

To better understand how whiteness and the possessive investment in its presence create (in)visible hierarchies, we define and explore the origin of whiteness by examining whiteness studies and how we have come to have a possessive investment in its presence. Next, we provide ways in which whiteness can be studied in medical education so that it can be disruptive.

CONCLUSION

We encourage health profession educators and researchers to collectively 'make strange' our current hierarchical system by not just recognising the privileges afforded to those who are White but also recognising how these privileges are invested in and maintained. As a community, we must develop and resist established power structures to transform the current hierarchy into a more equitable system that supports everyone, not just those who are White.

How medical learners and educators decide what counts as mistreatment: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

The mistreatment or abuse (maltreatment) of medical learners by their peers and supervisors has been documented globally for decades, and there is significant research about the prevalence, sequelae and strategies for intervention. However, there is evidence that learners experience maltreatment as being less clear cut than do researchers, educators and administrators. This definitional ambiguity creates problems for understanding and addressing this issue. The objective of this study was to understand how medical learners and educators make sense of less-than-ideal interactions in the clinical learning environment, and to describe which factors influenced their perception that the encounter constituted maltreatment.

METHODS

Using constructivist grounded theory, we interviewed 16 medical students, 15 residents or fellows, and 18 educators associated with a single medical school (n = 49). Data collection began with the most junior learners, iterating with analysis as we progressed through the project. Constant comparative analysis was used to gather and compare stories of 'definitely', 'maybe' and 'definitely not' maltreatment across a variety of axes including experience level, clinical setting and type of interaction.

RESULTS

Our data show that learners and educators have difficulty classifying their experiences of negative interpersonal interaction, except in the most severe and concrete cases. While there was tremendous variation in the way they categorised similar experiences, there was consistency in the elements drawn upon to make sense of those experiences. Participants interpreted negative interpersonal interactions on an individual basis by considering factors related to the interaction, initiator and recipient.

CONCLUSIONS

Only the most negative behaviour is consistently understood as maltreatment; a complex process of individual sense-making is required to determine the acceptability of each interaction. The differences between how individuals judge these interactions highlight an opportunity for administrative, research and faculty development intervention.

Emotion, ethics, epistemology: What can shame 'do' in medical education?

BACKGROUND

Recent empirical studies have described and theorized a culture of shame within medical education in the Anglo-American context (Bynum). Shame is universal and highly social human emotion characterized by a sense of feeling objectified and judged negatively, in contrast to one's own self-concept. Shame has both an embodied and a relational dimension. Shame is considered especially relevant in healthcare settings (Dolezal and Lyons), and the tenets of patient care within the medical profession include respecting the dignity and upholding the safety of patients. However, shame is frequently deployed as a teaching tool within medical training.

METHOD

Here I ask, what can shame do in medical education (Ahmed)? What epistemic and relational conditions does it construct? I draw from philosophical voices in higher education to illuminate how shaming practices in medical education can undermine dignity safety (Callan), preclude inclusivity, and in the context of the hierarchical and marginalizing medical system, propagate epistemic injustice (Fricker).

DISCUSSION

This argument shows how shame in education can be both phenomenologically and normatively problematic and may act differently upon students who experience marginalization and those who are majoritized. I further suggest that a medical education system which upholds the epistemological and relational frameworks of power, shame, and epistemic injustice, underscores those frameworks in the medical system at large, disserving individual patients who are already at risk of suffering epistemic injustice (Carel), and society at large.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of shame in medical education focuses on the highly relational and interpersonal elements of learning to live and work in the medical system, highlighting the need for respect, trust, and resistance to reorient the relational learning environment toward individual and systemic forms of justice.

Expanding Interdisciplinarity: A Bibliometric Study of Medical Education Using the Medical Education Journal List-24 (MEJ-24)

Introduction

Interdisciplinary research, which integrates input (e.g., data, techniques, theories) from two or more disciplines, is critical for solving wicked problems. Medical education research is assumed to be interdisciplinary. However, researchers have questioned this assumption. The present study, a conceptual replication, clarifies the nature of medical education interdisciplinarity by analyzing the citations of medical education journal articles.

Method

The authors retrieved the cited references of all articles in 22 medical education journals between 2001-2020 from Web of Science (WoS). We then identified the WoS classifications for the journals of each cited reference.

Results

We analyzed 31,283 articles referencing 723,683 publications. We identified 493,973 (68.3%) of those cited references in 6,618 journals representing 242 categories, which represents 94% of all WoS categories. Close to half of all citations were categorized as "education, scientific disciplines" and "healthcare sciences and services". Over the study period, the number of references consistently increased as did the representation of categories to include a diversity of topics such as business, management, and linguistics.

Discussion

Our study aligns with previous research, suggesting that medical education research could be described as inwardly focused. However, the observed growth of categories and their increasing diversity over time indicates that medical education displays increasing interdisciplinarity. Now visible, the field can raise awareness of and promote interdisciplinarity, if desired, by seeking and highlighting opportunities for future growth.

"My Assessments Are Biased!" Measurement and Sociocultural Approaches to Achieve Fairness in Assessment in Medical Education

Assessing learners is foundational to their training and developmental growth throughout the medical education continuum. However, growing evidence shows the prevalence and impact of harmful bias in assessments in medical education, accelerating the urgency to identify solutions. Assessment bias presents a critical problem for all stages of learning and the broader educational system. Bias poses significant challenges to learners, disrupts the learning environment, and threatens the pathway and transition of learners into health professionals. While the topic of assessment bias has been examined within the context of measurement literature, limited guidance and solutions exist for learners in medical education, particularly in the clinical environment. This article presents an overview of assessment bias, focusing on clinical learners. A definition of bias and its manifestations in assessments are presented. Consequences of assessment bias are discussed within the contexts of validity and fairness and their impact on learners, patients/caregivers, and the broader field of medicine. Messick's unified validity framework is used to contextualize assessment bias; in addition, perspectives from sociocultural contexts are incorporated into the discussion to elaborate the nuanced implications in the clinical training environment. Discussions of these topics are conceptualized within the literature and the interventions used to date. The article concludes with practical recommendations to overcome bias and to develop an ideal assessment system. Recommendations address articulating values to guide assessment, designing assessment to foster learning and outcomes, attending to assessment procedures, promoting continuous quality improvement of assessment, and fostering equitable learning and assessment environments.

The Urgency of Now: Rethinking and Improving Assessment Practices in Medical Education Programs

Assessment is essential to professional development. Assessment provides the information needed to give feedback, support coaching and the creation of individualized learning plans, inform progress decisions, determine appropriate supervision levels, and, most importantly, help ensure patients and families receive high-quality, safe care in the training environment. While the introduction of competency-based medical education has catalyzed advances in assessment, much work remains to be done. First, becoming a physician (or other health professional) is primarily a developmental process, and assessment programs must be designed using a developmental and growth mindset. Second, medical education programs must have integrated programs of assessment that address the interconnected domains of implicit, explicit and structural bias. Third, improving programs of assessment will require a systems-thinking approach. In this paper, the authors first address these overarching issues as key principles that must be embraced so that training programs may optimize assessment to ensure all learners achieve desired medical education outcomes. The authors then explore specific needs in assessment and provide suggestions to improve assessment practices. This paper is by no means inclusive of all medical education assessment challenges or possible solutions. However, there is a wealth of current assessment research and practice that medical education programs can use to improve educational outcomes and help reduce the harmful effects of bias. The authors' goal is to help improve and guide innovation in assessment by catalyzing further conversations.

Strategies for Advancing Equity in Frontline Clinical Assessment

Educational equity in medicine cannot be achieved without addressing assessment bias. Assessment bias in health professions education is prevalent and has extensive implications for learners and, ultimately, the health care system. Medical schools and educators desire to minimize assessment bias, but there is no current consensus on effective approaches. Frontline teaching faculty have the opportunity to mitigate bias in clinical assessment in real time. Based on their experiences as educators, the authors created a case study about a student to illustrate ways bias affects learner assessment. In this paper, the authors use their case study to provide faculty with evidence-based approaches to mitigate bias and promote equity in clinical assessment. They focus on 3 components of equity in assessment: contextual equity, intrinsic equity, and instrumental equity. To address contextual equity, or the environment in which learners are assessed, the authors recommend building a learning environment that promotes equity and psychological safety, understanding the learners' contexts, and undertaking implicit bias training. Intrinsic equity, centered on the tools and practices used during assessment, can be promoted by using competency-based, structured assessment methods and employing frequent, direct observation to assess multiple domains. Instrumental equity, focused on communication and how assessments are used, includes specific, actionable feedback to support growth and use of competency-based narrative descriptors in assessments. Using these strategies, frontline clinical faculty members can actively promote equity in assessment and support the growth of a diverse health care workforce.

The Problematic Persistence of Tiered Grading in Medical School

Issue: The evaluation of medical students is a critical, complex, and controversial process. It is tightly woven into the medical school curriculum, beginning at the inception of the medical student's professional journey. In this respect, medical student evaluation is among the first in a series of ongoing, lifelong assessments that influence the interpersonal, ethical, and socioeconomic dimensions necessary for an effective physician workforce. Yet, tiered grading has a questionable historic pedagogic basis in American medical education, and evidence suggests that tiered grading itself is a source of student burnout, anxiety, depression, increased competitiveness, reduced group cohesion, and racial biases. Evidence: In its most basic form, medical student evaluation is an assessment of the initial cognitive and technical competencies ultimately needed for the safe and effective practice of contemporary medicine. At many American medical schools, such evaluation relies largely on norm-based comparisons, such as tiered grading. Yet, tiered grading can cause student distress, is considered unfair by most students, is associated with biases against under-represented minorities, and demonstrates inconsistent correlation with residency performance. While arguments that tiered grading motivates student performance have enjoyed historic precedence in academia, such arguments are not supported by robust data or theories of motivation. Implications: Given the evolving recognition of the deleterious effects on medical student mental health, cohesiveness, and diversity, the use of tiered grading in medical schools to measure or stimulate academic performance, or by residency program directors to distinguish residency applicants, remains questionable. Examination of tiered grading in its historical, psychometric, psychosocial, and moral dimensions and the various arguments used to maintain it reveals a need for investigation of, if not transition to, alternative and non-tiered assessments of our medical students.