Advertisement

Medical Science Educator

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 199–204 | Cite as

Identifying High-Performing Students in Inpatient Clerkships: A Qualitative Study

  • Ryan KhodadadiEmail author
  • Lauren Nicholas Herrera
  • Erinn O. Schmit
  • Winter Williams
  • Carlos Estrada
  • Anne Zinski
Article

Abstract

Objectives

Examine fundamental behaviors and characteristics that attending physicians in inpatient settings utilize to identify high-performing clerkship students.

Methods

We employed written comment data from a cross-sectional survey of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics attending physicians at a single academic medical center in the southern USA. Free-text responses regarding factors that faculty consider when assigning honors grades were analyzed by four trained researchers (interrater agreement 0.87) using conventional content analysis to identify themes.

Results

Seventy-nine of 141 (56%) attending physicians who were surveyed provided 90 comments.

Four major theme areas for recognizing higher performing clerkship students were identified: Taking Ownership of Patient Care (35%), Medical Knowledge and Clinical Reasoning (20%), Team Orientation (15%), and Awareness of Opportunities for Growth and Progress (13%).

Conclusion

Internal Medicine and Pediatric attending physicians identified characteristics that contributed to four themes in the determination of a high-performing medical student. These findings are particularly salient, as they highlight that commitment to patients, application of clinical knowledge and skills, teamwork, and awareness of growth and progress are valued by attending physicians for identifying top performing students in inpatient settings.

Keywords

Medical student assessment Performance-based assessment Clinical clerkship evaluations Clinical clerkship grading Qualitative research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Medical Education Research Interest Group, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) School of Medicine. Dr. Chang Wu, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama. Drs. Khodadadi and Herrera were medical students was conducted, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) School of Medicine, in Birmingham, AL, USA

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The University of Alabama at Birmingham Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed and approved this study involving human participants and assigned Exempt Status.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Durning SJ, Hemmer PA. Commentary: grading: what is it good for? Acad Med. 2012;87(8):1002–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander EK, Osman NY, Walling JL, Mitchell VG. Variation and imprecision of clerkship grading in U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 2012;87(8):1070–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gulbas L, Guerin W, Ryder HF. Does what we write matter? Determining the features of high- and low-quality summative written comments of students on the internal medicine clerkship using pile-sort and consensus analysis: a mixed-methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartels J, Mooney CJ, Stone RT. Numerical versus narrative: a comparison between methods to measure medical student performance during clinical clerkships. Med Teach. 2017;39(11):1154–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cacamese SM, Elnicki M, Speer AJ. Grade inflation and the internal medicine subinternship: a national survey of clerkship directors. Teach Learn Med. 2007;19(4):343–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grover S, Swisher-McClure S, Sosnowicz S, Li J, Mitra N, Berman AT, et al. Grade inflation in medical student radiation oncology clerkships: missed opportunities for feedback? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;92(4):740–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hemann BA, Durning SJ, Kelly WF, Dong T, Pangaro LN, Hemmer PA. The association of students requiring remediation in the internal medicine clerkship with poor performance during internship. Mil Med. 2015;180(4 Suppl):47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hawthorne MR, Chretien KC, Torre D, Chheda SG. Re-demonstration without remediation--a missed opportunity? A national survey of internal medicine clerkship directors. Med Educ Online. 2014;19:25991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Colbert C, McNeal T, Lezama M, et al. Factors associated with performance in an internal medicine clerkship. Proc (Baylor Univ Med Cent). 2017;30(1):38–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colbert-Getz J. Is there an “Honors” level of competency or is it time to retire the “H” grade in clerkships? In: Learn serve lead. Boston: AAMC; 2017. p. 2017.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lipman JM, Schenarts KD. Defining honors in the surgery clerkship. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223(4):665–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dudas RA, Barone MA. Setting standards to determine core clerkship grades in pediatrics. Acad Pediatr. 2014;14(3):294–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee KB, Vaishnavi SN, Lau SK, Andriole DA, Jeffe DB. “Making the grade:” noncognitive predictors of medical students’ clinical clerkship grades. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007;99(10):1138–50.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weaver CS, Humbert AJ, Besinger BR, Graber JA, Brizendine EJ. A more explicit grading scale decreases grade inflation in a clinical clerkship. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(3):283–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dudek NL, Marks MB, Regehr G. Failure to fail: the perspectives of clinical supervisors. Acad Med. 2005;80(10 Suppl):S84–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yepes-Rios M, Dudek N, Duboyce R, Curtis J, Allard RJ, Varpio L. The failure to fail underperforming trainees in health professions education: a BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 42. Med Teach. 2016;38(11):1092–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takayama H, Grinsell R, Brock D, Foy H, Pellegrini C, Horvath K. Is it appropriate to use core clerkship grades in the selection of residents? Curr Surg. 2006;63(6):391–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McConnell MM, Harms S, Saperson K. Meaningful feedback in medical education: challenging the “failure to fail” using narrative methodology. Acad Psychiatry. 2016;40(2):377–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roman BJB, Trevino J. An approach to address grade inflation in a psychiatry clerkship. 2006;30(2):110–5.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fazio SB, Torre DM, DeFer TM. Grading practices and distributions across internal medicine clerkships. Teach Learn Med. 2016;28(3):286–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thompson RH, Lohse CM, Husmann DA, Leibovich BC, Gettman MT. Predictors of a successful urology resident using medical student application materials. Urology. 2017;108:22–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schindler N, Corcoran J, DaRosa D. Description and impact of using a standard-setting method for determining pass/fail scores in a surgery clerkship. Am J Surg. 2007;193(2):252–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Resident Matching Program DRaRC. Results of the 2016 NRMP Program Director Survey. Washington, DC: Title -- A to Z; 2016.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goldstein SD, Lindeman B, Colbert-Getz J, Arbella T, Dudas R, Lidor A, et al. Faculty and resident evaluations of medical students on a surgery clerkship correlate poorly with standardized exam scores. Am J Surg. 2014;207(2):231–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sobowale K, Ham SA, Curlin FA, Yoon JD. Personality traits are associated with academic achievement in medical school: a nationally representative study. Acad Psychiatry. 2017.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rosenbluth G, O'Brien B, Asher EM, Cho CS. The “zing factor”-how do faculty describe the best pediatrics residents? J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6(1):106–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lye PS, Biernat KA, Bragg DS, Simpson DE. A pleasure to work with--an analysis of written comments on student evaluations. Ambul Pediatr. 2001;1(3):128–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Herrera LS, Khodadadi, et al. What defines an honors student? Ward attending physicians’ perspective. Washington, DC: SGIM Annual Meeting; 2018.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Holmboe E, Edgar L, Hamstra S. The milestones guidebook, 2016.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schmit E, Wu C, Herrera N, Khodadadi R, Williams W, Estrada C. What defines an honors student? Pediatric and internal medicine values. Nashville: Pediatric Hospital Medicine; 2017.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Williams W, Herrera N, Khodadadi R, et al. What sets honors students apart? A ward attending perspective. San Antonio: Academic Internal Medicine Week; 2018.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ. “Any other comments?” Open questions on questionnaires - a bane or a bonus to research? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004;4:25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Essers G, Van Weel-Baumgarten E, Bolhuis S. Mixed messages in learning communication skills? Students comparing role model behaviour in clerkships with formal training. Med Teach. 2012;34(10):e659–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kogan JR, Holmboe ES, Hauer KE. Tools for direct observation and assessment of clinical skills of medical trainees: a systematic review. JAMA. 2009;302(12):1316–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Askew KL, O'Neill JC, Hiestand B, Manthey DE. Combined versus detailed evaluation components in medical student global rating indexes. West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(6):885–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Weiss PM, Koller CA, Hess LW, Wasser T. How do medical student self-assessments compare with their final clerkship grades? Med Teach. 2005;27(5):445–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Goldie J, Dowie A, Goldie A, Cotton P, Morrison J. What makes a good clinical student and teacher? An exploratory study. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Milan FB, Dyche L, Fletcher J. “How am I doing?” Teaching medical students to elicit feedback during their clerkships. Med Teach. 2011;33(11):904–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Elnicki DM, Zalenski D. Integrating medical students’ goals, self-assessment and preceptor feedback in an ambulatory clerkship. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25(4):285–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MedicineMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  2. 2.University of Alabama at Birmingham School of MedicineBirminghamUSA
  3. 3.Department of MedicineBaylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Pediatric Hospital Medicine, Department of PediatricsUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) School of MedicineBirminghamUSA
  5. 5.General Internal Medicine, Department of MedicineUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) School of Medicine and Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical CenterBirminghamUSA
  6. 6.Department of Medical EducationUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)BirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations