Washington University School of Medicine

Colson, Eve R.; Nuñez, Sabrina; Fer, Thomas M. De; Lawrence, Steven J.; Blaylock, Leslie; Emke, Amanda R.; Klingensmith, Mary E.; Gray, Diana L.; Schulte, Cole; Aagaard, Eva

doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000003385

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Four themes were identified from student feedback: (1) the Inquiry Curriculum framework creates opportunities for students to gain exposure to various approaches to understanding and addressing health care problems, (2) the curriculum targeted higher-level objectives for traditional research content and lower-level objectives for nontraditional content, (3) Glassick's criteria provided a useful structure for students to understand the rationale for and ordering of content, and (4) the curriculum had natural overlap with content often taught elsewhere in the curriculum, including evidence-based medicine, health equity, public and population health, and quality improvement and patient safety.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis launched a renewed curriculum in September 2020. 1 To align this new curriculum with the medical school's mission, we sought to create a structured, integrated curriculum that allows students to explore academic career pathways and engage in scholarship activities. 2 Most U.S. medical schools (74%) have similar programs in the form of scholarly concentrations, pathways, or tracks.…”

Section: Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Developing an Inclusive Scholarship Curriculum for Medical Students

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Problem: As part of a curriculum renewal, in 2020, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis sought to create an integrated curriculum that allows students to explore 4 academic career pathways (advocacy/global health, education, innovation, and research) and engage in scholarship activities—the Inquiry Curriculum. The curriculum needed to focus on foundational scholarship skills that would be applicable to all pathways. This article describes the process used to develop the curriculum learning objectives and lessons learned from initial implementation. Approach: The authors used a modified Delphi process to survey faculty experts from the 4 pathways to determine the objectives (March–May 2020). Twenty-four faculty were surveyed about 48 initial objectives created using Glassick’s scholarship criteria. After 2 rounds, 28 objectives met consensus. Further oversight committee review and revisions by session leads resulted in 77 unique objectives for 23 sessions in the curriculum that launched in spring 2021. Outcomes: Four themes were identified from student feedback: (1) the Inquiry Curriculum framework creates opportunities for students to gain exposure to various approaches to understanding and addressing health care problems, (2) the curriculum targeted higher-level objectives for traditional research content and lower-level objectives for nontraditional content, (3) Glassick’s criteria provided a useful structure for students to understand the rationale for and ordering of content, and (4) the curriculum had natural overlap with content often taught elsewhere in the curriculum, including evidence-based medicine, health equity, public and population health, and quality improvement and patient safety. Next Steps: The authors plan to consolidate sessions where there is redundancy, expand other sessions that require more time, and more purposefully discuss prior content when redundancy is intentional. Exploring other potential measures of curricular success, such as student learning outcomes, scholarly productivity, and impact on future scholarship engagement and career paths, are part of ongoing work.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing an Inclusive Scholarship Curriculum for Medical Students

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of note, WUSM underwent curriculum reform and welcomed the Gateway Internal Medicine clerkship in January 2022. The Gateway Internal Medicine clerkship introduced a new competency-based assessment system that continues to employ grading committees but differs in how assessment data are collected and the grades students may earn [ 20 ]. Within this article, we focus on the former curriculum and specify when lessons learned were applied to the Gateway clerkship.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frontline assessors’ opinions about grading committees in a medicine clerkship

Lewis,

Nolan,

Zickuhr

2024

BMC Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Collective decision-making by grading committees has been proposed as a strategy to improve the fairness and consistency of grading and summative assessment compared to individual evaluations. In the 2020–2021 academic year, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis (WUSM) instituted grading committees in the assessment of third-year medical students on core clerkships, including the Internal Medicine clerkship. We explored how frontline assessors perceive the role of grading committees in the Internal Medicine core clerkship at WUSM and sought to identify challenges that could be addressed in assessor development initiatives. Methods We conducted four semi-structured focus group interviews with resident (n = 6) and faculty (n = 17) volunteers from inpatient and outpatient Internal Medicine clerkship rotations. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Participants felt that the transition to a grading committee had benefits and drawbacks for both assessors and students. Grading committees were thought to improve grading fairness and reduce pressure on assessors. However, some participants perceived a loss of responsibility in students’ grading. Furthermore, assessors recognized persistent challenges in communicating students’ performance via assessment forms and misunderstandings about the new grading process. Interviewees identified a need for more training in formal assessment; however, there was no universally preferred training modality. Conclusions Frontline assessors view the switch from individual graders to a grading committee as beneficial due to a perceived reduction of bias and improvement in grading fairness; however, they report ongoing challenges in the utilization of assessment tools and incomplete understanding of the grading and assessment process.

show abstract