No abstract

In the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, where clinical environments are plagued by both uncertainty and complexity, the importance of the informal and social aspects of learning among health care teams cannot be exaggerated. While there have been attempts to better understand the nuances of informal learning in the clinical environment through descriptions of the tacit or hidden curriculum, incidental learning in medical education has only been partially captured in the research. Understood through concepts borrowed from the Cynefin conceptual framework for sensemaking, the early stages of the pandemic immersed clinical teams in complex and chaotic situations where there was no immediately apparent relationship between cause and effect. Health care teams had to act quickly amidst the chaos: they had to first act, make sense of, and respond with intentionality. Informal and incidental learning (IIL) emerged as a byproduct of acting with the tools and knowledge available in the moment. To integrate the informal, sometimes haphazard nature of emergence among health care teams, educators require an understanding of IIL. This understanding can help medical educators prepare health professions learners for the cognitive dissonance that accompanies uncertainty in clinical practice. The authors introduce IIL as an explanatory framework to describe how teams navigate complexity in the clinical learning environment and to better inform curricular development for health professions training that prepares learners for uncertainty. While further research in IIL is needed to illuminate tacit knowledge that makes learning explicit for all audiences in the health professions, there are opportunities to cultivate learners’ skills in formal curricula through various learning interventions to prime them for IIL when they enter complex clinical learning environments.

No abstract

Purpose There are no standardized approaches for communicating with patients discharged from the emergency department with diagnostic uncertainty. This trial tested efficacy of the Uncertainty Communication Education Module, a simulation-based mastery learning curriculum designed to establish competency in communicating diagnostic uncertainty. Method Resident physicians at 2 sites participated in a 2-arm waitlist randomized controlled trial from September 2019 to June 2020. After baseline (T1) assessment of all participants via a standardized patient encounter using the Uncertainty Communication Checklist (UCC), immediate access physicians received training in the Uncertainty Communication Education Module, which included immediate feedback, online educational modules, a smartphone-based application, and telehealth deliberate practice with standardized patients. All physicians were retested 16–19 weeks later (T2) via in-person standardized patient encounters; delayed access physicians then received the intervention. A final test of all physicians occurred 11–15 weeks after T2 (T3). The primary outcome measured the percentage of physicians in the immediate versus delayed access groups meeting or exceeding the UCC minimum passing standard at T2. Results Overall, 109 physicians were randomized, with mean age 29 years (range 25–46). The majority were male (n = 69, 63%), non-Hispanic/Latino (n = 99, 91%), and White (n = 78, 72%). At T2, when only immediate access participants had received the curriculum, immediate access physicians demonstrated increased mastery (n = 29, 52.7%) compared with delayed access physicians (n = 2, 3.7%, P < .001; estimated adjusted odds ratio of mastery for the immediate access participants, 31.1 [95% CI, 6.8–143.1]). There were no significant differences when adjusting for training site or stage of training. Conclusions The Uncertainty Communication Education Module significantly increased mastery in communicating diagnostic uncertainty at the first postintervention test among emergency physicians in standardized patient encounters. Further work should assess the impact of clinical implementation of these communication skills.

Health professions education has benefitted from standardized patient (SP) programs to develop and refine communication and interpersonal skills in trainees. Effective case design is essential to ensure an SP encounter successfully meets learning objectives that are focused on communication skills. Creative, well-designed case scenarios offer learners the opportunity to engage in complex patient encounters, while challenging them to address the personal and emotional contexts in which their patients are situated. Therefore, prior to considering the practical execution of the patient encounter, educators will first need a clear and structured strategy for writing, organizing, and developing cases. The authors reflect on lessons learned in developing standardized patient-based cases to train learners to communicate to patients during times of diagnostic uncertainty, and provide suggestions to develop a set of simulation cases that are both standardized and diverse. Key steps and workflow processes that can assist educators with case design are introduced. The authors review the need to increase awareness of and mitigate existing norms and implicit biases, while maximizing variation in patient diversity. Opportunities to leverage the breadth of emotional dispositions of the SP and the affective domain of a clinical encounter are also discussed as a means to guide future case development and maximize the value of a case for its respective learning outcomes.

No abstract

The progression of becoming a fully self-directed learner is represented as a double helix in the model below. One helix represents educators who support learner SRL, and the other represents the learner's SRL processes. With each revolution of the helices, the learner progresses through an SRL cycle, bringing them closer to becoming a fully self-directed learner. Along this journey, educators and other learners offer support in the form of coregulation, which is represented by the linkages of the helices.The model describes SDL as an iterative process that spirals over time. Learning and assessment of learning are linked, as learners monitor their own progress and receive external feedback during learning activities. After successive adjustments, the learner progresses to higher levels of learning and performance.

No abstract