Hessgarrett8358

In May 2020, the Coalition for Physician Accountability's Work Group on Medical Students in the Class of 2021 Moving Across Institutions for Post Graduate Training (WG) released their final report and recommendations. These recommendations pertain to away rotations, virtual interviews, Electronic Residency Application Service opening for programs and the overall residency timeline, and general communications and attempt to provide clarity and level the playing field during the 2020-2021 residency application cycle. The WG's aims include promoting professional accountability by improving the quality, efficiency, and continuity of the education, training, and assessment of physicians. The authors argue the first 3 WG recommendations may disproportionately impact candidates from historically excluded and underrepresented groups in medicine (HEURGMs) and may affect an institution's ability to ensure equity in the selection of residency applicants, and, thus, warrant further consideration. The authors examine these recommendations from a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) perspective. For each of the first 3 WG recommendations, the authors highlight new opportunities created by the recommendations and detail challenges which programs must carefully navigate to ensure equity for all candidates. The authors also recommend solutions to guide programs as they address these challenges, meet new common program requirements, and attempt to promote equity for HEURGMs. Finally, the authors recommend that after the 2020-2021 recruitment cycle, the medical education community evaluate DEI-related outcomes of both the WG's and the authors' recommendations and incorporate the findings into future application cycles.

The American Medical Association's Accelerating Change in Medical Education consortium defined health systems science (HSS) as the study of how health care is delivered, how health care professionals work together to deliver that care, and how the health system can improve patient care and health care delivery. This framework is increasingly being incorporated into medical school curricula. Graduate medical education (GME) had previously elevated systems-based practice (SBP) as a core competency, but expectations are defined by specialty-specific milestones. The lack of a shared competency framework between undergraduate (UME) and GME makes it challenging to ensure that entering residents are prepared to implement HSS/SBP concepts in the workplace. The authors explored GME faculty observations of residents exemplifying successful practice across HSS domains to inform targets for UME training and assessment.

Authors performed a single-institution qualitative study using transcribed phone interviews with elperiences, core workforce characteristics and, outlines entry-level HSS behaviors. Conceptualized in a logic model framework, these findings describe key inputs, learning activities, outputs, and outcomes for systems-prepared entering residents bridging the UME-GME transition.

Descriptions of successful practice within HSS domains highlights preparatory experiences, core workforce characteristics and, outlines entry-level HSS behaviors. Conceptualized in a logic model framework, these findings describe key inputs, learning activities, outputs, and outcomes for systems-prepared entering residents bridging the UME-GME transition.This article describes the University of Minnesota Medical School Proposal Preparation Program (P3). P3 is designed to develop grant-writing skills for assistant professors who are preparing their first K- or R-series application to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Three 4-month P3 cycles are conducted annually. For each cycle, a cohort of around 10 assistant professor participants and 5 regular faculty mentors meet for ten ~2-hour group sessions. Participants receive iterative oral and written feedback on their proposals-in-development within a small, interdisciplinary, group mentoring setting that provides structure, accountability, guidance, and support. Between sessions, one peer and one mentor are assigned (on a rotating basis) to critique a participant's developing application. The sessions include a brief mentor-led presentation on a particular grant section followed by discussion of each participant's application conducted by the assigned reviewers. The cycle concludes with a mock NIH review session, in which each participant is matched with a University of Minnesota faculty content expert who critiques their completed application using NIH guidelines. In a survey sent to all past P3 participants as of 2018 (n = 194), 88% of respondents reported having submitted their P3-developed NIH grant, and 35% of these submitters reported funding success. A separate analysis of institutional data for all past P3 participants as of 2016 (n = 165) showed that 73% submitted at least one NIH proposal since completing P3 and that 43% of these had acquired NIH funding, for a combined total of $193 million in funding awarded. The estimated rate at which participants obtained funding for their P3-developed grant application (~35%) exceeds the national annual NIH grant funding rates (~20%) by approximately 50%. This article provides the practical information needed for other institutions to implement a P3-like program and presents a cost-benefit analysis showing the advantages of doing so.Recently, the use of phrases such as race, racism, anti-racism, and anti-racist have increased in health professions education (HPE). While the terms are used more frequently, additional work is needed to demonstrate a commitment to enhance equity, diversity, and inclusion in HPE. It is important that we contextualize these phrases, understand the connections between them, and use this information to implement sustainable actions to disrupt the status quo in HPE. Critical race theory is a tool to consider for this journey. We must also be aware that there is another word that undergirds the relationship between race, racism, anti-racism, and anti-racist. And we must know, employ, and embrace the concept of this "r" word, too. Not as a matter of shame or insult, but from a desire for growth through introspection if we are authentically striving to become anti-racist individuals and organizations. In this paper, the author provides an overview of key concepts ranging from race to critical race theory as a primer to the Research in Medical Education (RIME) plenary.This commentary presents the position that modern medicine is a colonial artefact in the sense that the type of scientific thinking that underpins modern medicine emerged from western knowledge structures based on a history of colonialism. The author suggests the colonial roots of Western-based modern medicine must be re-examined. While there are various critical theories that may be applied in this reexamination, most do not adequately account for intersectional, intergenerational, and sociohistorical inequities encountered in the multiplicity of global contexts in practice teaching and research within medicine. The author presents decoloniality as a theoretical perspective from which to interrogate sociohistorical, geopolitical, and economic perspectives on gender, race, and heteropaternalistic influences in medicine emanating from a basis in colonially developed systems of knowledge production. The author offers definitions of relevant theoretical terms and suggests that decolonial praxis begins with an initial realization or awareness of one's position within the colonial matrix of power followed by the reflecting or deliberation, or a grappling with real-life struggles that are encountered in confronting the oppressive operations of the colonial matrix of power. Decolonial praxis involves action through challenging mainstream foundational theories-the questions they generate, the research methods they support, and the writing styles they employ. In medical education this may involve changing powerful actors, such as medical journal editors and researchers, with historical privilege; shifting the balance of power in research spaces; and dismantling physical and intellectual structures and institutions established on colonial epistemologies.

Despite growing interest in shared leadership models, autocratic physician leadership remains the norm in health care. Stereotype and bias limit leadership by members of other professions. Furthermore, traditional views of effective clinical leadership emphasize agentic behaviors associated with male gender. To shift the prototypical concept of a leader from a male physician to a more inclusive prototype, a better understanding of prototype formation is needed. This study examines leader prototypes and their development among resident physicians through the lens of leadership categorization theory.

One researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with anesthesia and internal medicine residents at a single institution, asking participants to describe their ideal team leader and comment on the video-recorded performance of either a male or female nurse practitioner (NP) leading a simulated resuscitation. Interview questions explored participants' perceptions of NPs as team leaders and how these perceptiog team training to increase awareness of bias and the backlash effect faced by individuals whose behaviors counter established stereotypes.

These results provide suggestions for interventions that can help shift the leadership prototype in health care and promote shared leadership models. These include increasing exposure to different professionals of either gender in leadership roles and increased representation in educational materials, education about effective leadership strategies to create awareness of the benefits of shared leadership, and reflection during team training to increase awareness of bias and the backlash effect faced by individuals whose behaviors counter established stereotypes.

To compare perception of accelerated and traditional medical students, with respect to satisfaction with educational quality and the learning environment, residency readiness, burnout, debt, and career plans.

Customized 2017 and 2018 Medical School Graduation Questionnaires (GQs) were analyzed using independent samples t tests for means and chi square tests for percentages, comparing responses of accelerated MD program graduates (AP students) from 9 schools with those of non-AP graduates from the same 9 schools and non-AP graduates from all surveyed schools.

GQ completion rates for the 90 AP students, 2,573 non-AP students from AP schools, and 38,116 non-AP students from all schools in 2017 and 2018 were 74.4%, 82.3%, and 83.3%, respectively. read more AP students were as satisfied with the quality of their education and felt as prepared for residency as non-AP students. AP students also reported a more positive learning climate than non-AP students from AP schools and from all schools as measured by the student-workforce shortages and rising student debt without negative impacts on student perception of burnout, education quality, or residency preparedness.

Physicians are expected to provide compassionate, error-free care while navigating systemic challenges and organizational demands. Many are burning out. While organizations are scrambling to address the burnout crisis, physicians often resist interventions aimed at enhancing their wellness and building their resilience. The purpose of this research was to empirically study this phenomenon.

Constructivist grounded theory was used to inform the iterative data collection and analysis process. In spring 2018, 22 faculty physicians working in Canada participated in semistructured interviews to discuss their experiences of wellness and burnout, their perceptions of wellness initiatives, and how their experiences and perceptions influence their uptake of the rapidly proliferating strategies aimed at nurturing their resilience. Themes were identified using constant comparative analysis.

Participants suggested that the values of compassion espoused by health care organizations do not extend to physicians, and they described feeling dehumanized by professional values steeped in an invincibility myth in which physicians are expected to be "superhuman" and "sacrifice everything" for medicine.