Search

Objectives To determine if faculty perceive standardized oral examinations to be more objective and useful than the non-standardized format in assessing third-year medical students’ learning on the obstetrics and gynecology rotation. Methods Obstetrics and gynecology faculty at three teaching hospitals were sampled to complete a survey retrospectively comparing the standardized oral examination (SOE) and non-standardized or traditional oral examinations (TOE). A Likert scale (0-5) was used to assess satisfaction, objectivity, and usefulness of SOE and TOE. Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to compare median Likert scale scores for each survey item. A Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used to investigate the relationship between the perceived level of objectivity and SOE characteristics. For qualitative measures, content analysis was applied. Results Sixty-six percent (n=25) of eligible faculty completed the survey. Faculty perceived the standardized oral examination as significantly more objective compared with the non-standardized (z=-3.15, p=0.002). Faculty also found SOE to be more useful in assessing overall clerkship performance (z=-2.0, p

Background Mistreatment has potential downstream effects on students. General surgery rotations tend to have a higher incidence of mistreatment reports. This study was undertaken to identify dominant themes contributing to a negative learning environment. Methods A qualitative study was performed using Delphi consensus technique to develop a discussion guide. Four focus groups were performed (n = 30 participants) with medical students, residents, nurses, and attending surgeons. Participants were selected using purposive-stratified criterion-based sampling. Results Multiple themes emerged: 1) unclear expectations for medical students; 2) passive mistreatment (neglect); 3) failure to integrate students into surgical team; 4) witnessed or experienced active mistreatment, 5) negative attitude of residents towards medical students' lack of knowledge. Conclusions Medical student mistreatment persists and is a threat to the learning environment and individual learning process. Passive mistreatment (neglect) represents the most distressing component of mistreatment. These findings suggest a need for education aimed at surgical residents and others in the learning environment.

The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether the types of postgraduate trainees’ teaching barriers would be associated with their experience levels and the four clinical settings in Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB/GYN). Individual semi-structured interviews with 13 OB/GYN residents and Fellows were conducted and followed by an online survey sent to all OB/GYN residents and Fellows in three research sites. Descriptive statistical analysis and thematic analysis were applied. Eleven OB/GYN residents and two Fellows participated in the interviews. Of 93 possible OB/GYN resident and Fellow respondents, 57 (61.3 %) completed the online survey. Limited time was the predominant barrier across OB/GYN trainees’ experience levels. Six factors contributing to the teaching barriers were identified. Major types of teaching barriers perceived by trainees were similar in outpatient and labor and delivery settings, but differed from perceived barriers in the inpatient and operating room settings. Major types of teaching barriers were associated with trainees’ experience levels as well as the four clinical settings in OB/GYN. Findings from this study deepen OB/GYN clerkships and residency programs’ understanding of Trainee-as-Teacher, as well as provide useful information for programs to manage teaching tasks and to further enhance the implementation of Trainee-as-Teacher curricula efficiency.

Although national attention has been focused on sexual harassment and gender inequity in the United States, leaders within the obstetrics and gynecology community have remained relatively silent. Sexual harassment and gender inequity remain pervasive in our specialty. This article serves as a call to action for leadership as well as physicians within obstetrics and gynecology to implement ethical and evidence-based approaches to reduce gender inequity and improve workplace culture within our specialty.

Background: “Student-as-Teacher” (SaT) programs have been growing in number to prepare medical students for their teaching roles in residency and beyond, but it remains unknown what content areas should be covered in SaT curricula. Aim: To determine five to ten “essential” content areas for inclusion in SaT curricula using expert opinion. Methods: Using a three-round Delphi process, moderators iteratively surveyed a panel of 28 medical educators (25 academy directors and three individuals identified as having expertise in undergraduate medical education) representing 25 medical schools in the United States. This “SaT Delphi Working Group” was tasked with rating topics for inclusion in SaT curricula on a 3-point scale (i.e. 1. “essential,” 2. “important, but not essential” 3. “not important”). Topics achieving ≥70% consensus as “essential,” “important” or “not important” were accepted by the moderators and removed from subsequent rounds. Results: Hundred per cent response rate (n = 28) was achieved for all survey rounds. Five content areas reached consensus as “essential” for inclusion in a SaT curriculum: feedback, bedside teaching and clinical precepting, small-group teaching, case-based teaching and professionalism as a medical educator. Conclusion: This consensus from a group of leaders in medical education is a first step toward the implementation of more developmentally-appropriate SaT competencies.

Frame-of-reference (FOR) training has been used successfully to teach faculty how to produce accurate and reliable workplace-based ratings when assessing a performance. We engaged 21 Harvard Medical School faculty members in our pilot and implementation studies to determine the effectiveness of using FOR training to assess health professionals' teaching performances.All faculty were novices at rating their peers' teaching effectiveness. Before FOR training, we asked participants to evaluate a recorded lecture using a criterion-based peer assessment of medical lecturing instrument. At the start of training, we discussed the instrument and emphasized its precise behavioral standards. During training, participants practiced rating lectures and received immediate feedback on how well they categorized and scored performances as compared with expert-derived scores of the same lectures. At the conclusion of the training, we asked participants to rate a post-training recorded lecture to determine agreement with the experts' scores.Participants and experts had greater rating agreement for the post-training lecture compared with the pretraining lecture. Through this investigation, we determined that FOR training is a feasible method to teach faculty how to accurately and reliably assess medical lectures.Medical school instructors and continuing education presenters should have the opportunity to be observed and receive feedback from trained peer observers. Our results show that it is possible to use FOR rater training to teach peer observers how to accurately rate medical lectures. The process is time efficient and offers the prospect for assessment and feedback beyond traditional learner evaluation of instruction.