The Cognitive Load of Inpatient Consults: A Convergent Parallel Mixed Methods Study Using the Consult Cognitive Load Instrument

Learning from our patients: An exploratory study to inform the development of a case tracking dashboard for internal medicine subspecialty fellows

BACKGROUND

Case tracking (following-up prior patient encounters) can help inform future clinical decisions and supplement experiential learning. Internal medicine subspecialty fellows see a high volume of patients and need to become subject matter experts within a short time frame, yet little is known about their specific needs and motivations around case tracking.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore internal medicine subspecialty fellows' motivations, preferences, and practices around case tracking.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with internal medicine subspecialty fellows at a single academic medical center during the 2022-2023 academic year. Interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

22 fellows were interviewed for our study. We found that most fellows engaged in case tracking with lists in the electronic health record (EHR). Fellows primarily tracked cases of clinical uncertainty and patients with specific diseases or conditions of interest. Fellows sought information on patients' health outcomes, results, and clinical notes. Motivations for tracking were predominantly related to curiosity, professional growth, and development of practice patterns. Barriers to case tracking included time, challenges maintaining patient lists, losing track of patients, and lack of motivation to develop and maintain an organized system.

CONCLUSIONS

Internal medicine subspecialty fellows engaged in and valued case tracking as a way to supplement their experiential learning. Our study highlighted their current practices, motivations, preferences, and challenges related to case tracking. We plan to use these findings to help develop an EHR-embedded dashboard to facilitate case tracking among subspecialty fellows.

Rethinking the consultation paradigm: Validity evidence for a new framework, a multimethods study

BACKGROUND

In-hospital consultation is essential for patient care. We previously proposed a framework of seven specific consultation types to classify consult requests to improve communication, workflow, and provider satisfaction.

METHODS

This multimethods study's aim was to evaluate the applicability of the consult classification framework to real internal medicine (IM) consults. We sought validity evidence using Kane's validity model with focus groups and classifying consult requests from five IM specialties. Participants attended five 1 h semi-structured focus groups that were recorded, transcribed, and coded for thematic saturation. For each specialty, three specialists and three hospitalists categorized 100 (total 500) random anonymized consult requests. The primary outcome was concordance in the classification of consult requests, defined as the sum of partial concordance and perfect concordance, where respectively 4-5/6 and 6/6 participants classified a consult in the same category. We used χ2 tests to compare concordance rates across specialties and between specialists and hospitalists.

RESULTS

Five major themes were identified in the qualitative analysis of the focus groups: (1) consult question, (2) interpersonal interactions, (3) value, (4) miscommunication, (5) consult framework application, barriers, and iterative development. In the quantitative analysis, the overall concordance rate was 88.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85.7-91.4), and perfect concordance was 46.6% (95% CI: 42.2-51.1). Concordance differed significantly between hospitalists and specialists overall (p = .01), with a higher proportion of hospitalists having perfect concordance compared to specialists (67.2% vs. 57.8%, p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

The consult classification framework was found to be applicable to consults from five different IM specialties, and could improve communication and education.

Skills, Not Just Knowledge: Infectious Diseases Fellows' Recommendations Regarding Antimicrobial Stewardship Training

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial stewardship (AS) is an important topic in infectious diseases (ID) training, yet many ID fellowships lack formal training, and little is known about fellows' learning preferences.

METHODS

We conducted 24 in-depth interviews with ID fellows across the United States during 2018 and 2019 to explore their experiences with and preferences for AS education during fellowship. Interviews were transcribed, deidentified, and analyzed to identify themes.

RESULTS

Fellows had variable exposure to AS before and during fellowship, which impacted their knowledge about and attitude toward stewardship as a career; however, all fellows expressed the importance of learning general stewardship principles during fellowship. Some fellows' training included mandatory stewardship lectures and/or rotations, but most fellows felt their primary stewardship learning occurred through informal experiences in the clinical setting, such as holding the antimicrobial approval pager. Fellows expressed a preference for a standardized, structured curriculum that included in-person practical, interactive discussions with multidisciplinary faculty along with the opportunity to practice and apply their skills; however, they emphasized that time needed to be set aside for those educational activities. Although they wanted to learn the evidence and rationale for stewardship recommendations, they especially wanted training in and feedback on how to communicate stewardship recommendations to other health professionals, particularly in the setting of conflict.

CONCLUSIONS

ID fellows believe that standardized AS curricula should be included in their fellowship training, and they prefer structured, practical, and interactive learning experiences.

Moving From Theory to Practice in Oncology Education When Virtual Is Your Reality

Evidence-based education is crucial for meeting the evolving needs of learners in the oncology workforce, given the growing demand for well-trained providers and the rapidly changing complexities of cancer care. With the onset of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic, innovative means of delivering educational content in a virtual setting have become a necessary reality. Knowledge of learning science can be translated into concrete, pragmatic methods for using evidence-based education in a virtual world and affords important opportunities for innovation and inclusion across a broad network of educators and learners. We offer key insights and tools to promote attention to and agility with teaching in virtual settings to meet the needs of contemporary educators and learners.

Disruption and Dissonance: Exploring Constructive Tensions Within Research in Medical Education

The academic medicine community has experienced an unprecedented level of disruption in recent years. In this context, the authors consider how the disruptions have impacted the state of research in medical education (RIME). The articles in this year's RIME supplement reflect several constructive tensions that provide insight on future for the field. In this commentary, the authors discuss themes and propose a framework for the future. Recommendations include: normalizing help seeking during times of disruption and uncertainty, contextualizing the application of complex approaches to assessment, advancing and problematizing innovation, and recognizing the deeply embedded and systemic nature of inequities.