scholarly journals Effect of resident and assessor gender on entrustment-based observational assessment in an internal medicine residency program

MedEdPublish ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
Danielle E. Weber ◽  
Benjamin Kinnear ◽  
Matthew Kelleher ◽  
Melissa Klein ◽  
Dana Sall ◽  
...  

Background: Implicit gender bias leads to differences in assessment. Studies examining gender differences in resident milestone assessment data demonstrate variable results. The purpose of this study was to determine if observational entrustment scores differ by resident and assessor gender in a program of assessment based on discrete, observable skills.  Methods: We analyzed overall entrustment scores and entrustment scores by Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core competency for 238 residents (49% female) from 396 assessors (38% female) in one internal medicine residency program from July 2012 to June 2019. We conducted analyses at 1-12 months, 1-36 months, 1-6 months, 7-12 months, and 31-36 months. We used linear mixed-effect models to assess the role of resident and assessor gender, with resident-specific and assessor-specific random effect to account for repeated measures.  Results: Statistically significant interactions existed between resident and assessor gender for overall entrustment at 1-12 months (p < 0.001), 1-36 months (p< 0.001), 1-6 months (p<0.001), 7-12 months (p=0.04), and 31-36 months (p<0.001). However, group differences were not statistically significant. In several instances an interaction was significant between resident and assessor gender by ACGME core competency, but there were no statistically significant group differences for all competencies at any time point. When applicable, subsequent analysis of main effect of resident or assessor gender independently of one another revealed no statistically significant differences.   Conclusions: No significant differences in entrustment scores were found based on resident or assessor gender in our large, robust entrustment-based program of assessment. Determining the reasons for our findings may help identify ways to mitigate gender bias in assessment.

Diagnosis ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shwetha Iyer ◽  
Erin Goss ◽  
Casey Browder ◽  
Gerald Paccione ◽  
Julia Arnsten

Abstract Background Errors in medicine are common and often tied to diagnosis. Educating physicians about the science of cognitive decision-making, especially during medical school and residency when trainees are still forming clinical habits, may enhance awareness of individual cognitive biases and has the potential to reduce diagnostic errors and improve patient safety. Methods The authors aimed to develop, implement and evaluate a clinical reasoning curriculum for Internal Medicine residents. The authors developed and delivered a clinical reasoning curriculum to 47 PGY2 residents in an Internal Medicine Residency Program at a large urban hospital. The clinical reasoning curriculum consists of six to seven sessions with the specific aims of: (1) educating residents on cognitive steps and reasoning strategies used in clinical reasoning; (2) acknowledging the pitfalls of clinical reasoning and learning how cognitive biases can lead to clinical errors; (3) expanding differential diagnostic ability and developing illness scripts that incorporate discrete clinical prediction rules; and (4) providing opportunities for residents to reflect on their own clinical reasoning (also known as metacognition). Results Forty-seven PGY2 residents participated in the curriculum (2013–2016). Self-assessed comfort in recognizing and applying clinical reasoning skills increased in 15 of 15 domains (p < 0.05 for each). Resident mean scores on the knowledge assessment improved from 58% pre-curriculum to 81% post curriculum (p = 0.002). Conclusions A case vignette-based clinical reasoning curriculum can effectively increase residents’ knowledge of clinical reasoning concepts and improve residents’ self-assessed comfort in recognizing and applying clinical reasoning skills.


2013 ◽  
Vol 88 (11) ◽  
pp. 1665-1669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Becky N. Lowry ◽  
Lisa M. Vansaghi ◽  
Sally K. Rigler ◽  
Steven W. Stites

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document