Dataset Information

Educational autopsy: An innovative structured debrief for residency didactic teaching.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Educational autopsy (EA) is an innovative technique designed to improve the quality of feedback provided to conference presenters. In response to survey fatigue and suboptimal feedback from online evaluations, this postlecture group debrief was adapted to emergency medicine residency didactics, with a goal of collecting timely, specific, and balanced feedback for presenters. Other aims include encouraging participants to think critically about educational methods and providing presenters with formal feedback for a portfolio or promotion packet. It was hypothesized that EA provides more specific and actionable feedback than traditional online evaluations deployed individually to conference attendees.

Methods

The authors analyzed 4 months of evaluations pre- and postimplementation of EA. Rate of completion, presence of comments, and types of comments were compared. Comments were coded as specific, nonspecific, and unrelated/unclear. Specific comments were further categorized as about audiovisual presentation design, speaker presentation style, and educational methods of the session.

Results

A total of 46 of 65 (71%) preimplementation presentations eligible for evaluation received comments through traditional online evaluations. A total of 44 of 75 (59%) eligible postimplementation presentations generated comments via EA. Among presentations that received comments, none received nonspecific comments via EA, compared to 46% of lectures through traditional evaluations. EA generated specific comments for more presentations regarding presentation design (91% vs. 63%), presentation style (66% vs. 24%), and educational methods (48% vs. 28%). EA produced no unclear comments; traditional evaluations resulted in unclear comments for 15% of lectures.

Conclusions

EA generated more specific feedback for residency conference presenters, although there were a number of sessions not evaluated by EA. Although this limited analysis suggested that EA produced higher-quality presenter feedback, it also showed a drop-off in the proportion of didactic sessions that received narrative feedback.

SUBMITTER: Griffith M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8239163 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPostgraduate education is transitioning to a competency-based curriculum in an effort to standardize the quality of graduating trainees. The learning experiences and opportunities in each institution are likely variable, as no standard exists regarding the teaching curriculum offered through residency. The objective of this study is to examine the various teaching curricula among different Canadian urology residency programs and to identify which teaching modalities are prioritized by program directors.MethodsA 10-question anonymous survey was sent electronically to program directors at all 12 urology residency programs across Canada. Questions were designed to quantify the time allotted for teaching and to assess the various teaching session types prioritized by programs to ensure the successful training of their graduates. We assessed each program's perceived value of written exams, oral exams, didactic teaching session, and simulation sessions. Responses were assessed using a Likert-scale and a ranking format. Descriptive statistics were performed.ResultsOverall survey response rate from residency program directors was 75% (9/12). Sixty-seven percent of programs designated one day of teaching per week, whereas 33% split resident teaching over two days. Review of chapters directly from Campbell-Walsh Urology textbook were deemed the most valuable teaching session. Practice oral exams were also prioritized, whereas most programs felt that simulation labs contributed the least to residency education. All programs included review of the core urology textbook in their weekly teaching, while only 67% of programs included faculty-led didactic sessions and case presentations. Forty-four percent of programs included resident-led didactic sessions. Practice oral exams and simulation labs were the least commonly included teaching modalities.ConclusionsAlthough most program directors prioritize the review of chapters in the core urology textbook, we found significant heterogeneity in the teaching sessions prioritized and offered in current urology residency curricula. As we move to standardize the quality of graduating trainees, understanding the impact of variable educational opportunities on residency training may become increasingly important.

Project description:BackgroundLabeling a patient "non-compliant" is a form of dehumanization that can deprive the patient of positive human qualities and/or agency in the mind of a physician. The term "non-compliant" is frequently used in medical record documentation and has been shown to compromise care, particularly for marginalized communities. There is limited literature on the impact of the label on medical trainees. We aimed to explore how internal medicine residents and fellows (trainees) perceive the term "non-compliant patient" and its impact on their practice after interacting with a simulated refugee patient who has not followed a physician's recommendations.MethodsKolb's experiential learning cycle guided the design of the educational session which was part of a required communication skills curriculum for trainees. A scenario was created to simulate a refugee patient who had not adhered to their treatment plan and could potentially be labeled as "non-compliant." Trainees participated in the 3-h session consisting of a remote simulated patient encounter immediately followed by a virtual structured debrief session that was recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis of debrief transcripts was conducted starting with the use of provisional codes from the literature on the doctor-patient relationship and de/humanization.ResultsIn group debrief sessions, trainees reflected upon the standardized patient case and chose to also discuss similar cases they had experienced in clinical practice. Trainees indicated that the term "non-compliant patient" served as a biasing function and described how this bias negatively impacted the doctor-patient relationship. Trainees described how marginalized communities might be more susceptible to the negative connotation associated with the term "non-compliant patient." For some trainees, the term triggered further investigation of underlying barriers to care and exploration of the social determinants of health.ConclusionsThe use of the phrase "non-compliant patient," though common in medical practice, may lead to patient dehumanization among trainees. A simulated refugee patient encounter followed by a facilitated group debrief allowed participants to verbalize and reflect on the meaning and possible impact of the label.

Project description:BackgroundIn some current healthcare settings, there is a noticeable absence of national institutions committed to the synthesis and use of evidence in healthcare decision- and policy-making. This absence creates a need to broaden the responsibilities of healthcare providers to include knowledge brokering and advocacy in order to optimize knowledge translation to other stakeholders, especially policy-makers. However, this process requires practitioners and researchers to acquire certain types of knowledge and skills. This article introduces two innovative methods for capacity building in knowledge translation (KT).MethodsDuring a workshop aimed at preparing 21 trainers in evidence-based medicine, two innovative methods were used: (1) debate and (2) a knowledge translation project (KTP). The main objective of the debates approach was to strengthen participants' critical thinking abilities by requiring them to search for and appraise evidence and defend their arguments. The KTP was used to introduce participants to the essential steps of knowledge translation and to suggest an extended role for healthcare practitioners, i.e., using evidence to manage not only individual patients but also to a community of patients. Participants' performances were assessed according to a pre-designed scheme. At the end of the workshop, participants' opinions and experiences with the innovative teaching methods were evaluated based on their answers to a questionnaire and the results of small-group discussions.ResultsThe participants performed well in both the debate and KTP methods. During post-workshop group discussions, they indicated that the debate approach had added a new dimension to their evidence-based medicine skills by adding purpose and motivation. However, they felt that their performances would have been better if they had been offered practical demonstrations of how to conduct the debate. The participants indicated that the KTP enhanced their understanding of the relationships between evidence and implementation, and motivated them to investigate public health problems in addition to individual patient problems. However, some participants maintained that these issues fell outside the scope of their role as doctors.ConclusionDebates and evidence implementation through KTP are generally well accepted by healthcare practitioners as methods by which they can improve their skills in KT.