Background Despite many benefits of end-of-life (EOL) planning, only 1 in 3 adults has EOL documentation, with low rates in resident primary care clinics as well. Objective To increase clinic completion of life-sustaining treatment (LST) notes and advance directives (AD) for veterans at highest risk for death. Methods The setting was a Veterans Affairs (VA) internal medicine primary care clinic. All clinic residents in the 2021-2022 academic year and all clinic patients identified through a VA risk-stratification tool as highest risk for death were included. Baseline AD and LST completion rates were determined through manual chart review. Our interventions included 2 hours of teaching to increase resident knowledge of EOL planning and a systematic process improvement to complete EOL planning appointments. Outcomes assessed included anonymous resident pre- and post-surveys of self-assessed knowledge and comfort with EOL conversations, as well as rates of LST and AD completion determined through serial chart review. Results In the 2021-2022 academic year, 22 residents (100%) and 54 patients were included. Post-intervention surveys (n=22, 100%) showed improved self-assessed knowledge of EOL concepts and comfort with patient discussions (median Likert increase 3 to 4). The number of residents who completed an EOL planning visit increased from 9 of 22 (41%) to 15 (68%). LST completion increased from 9 of 54 (17%) to 29 (54%), and AD completion increased from 18 of 54 (33%) to 33 (61%). Conclusions A brief teaching intervention to prepare residents for comprehensive EOL visits combined with process improvement to offer EOL planning visits improved self-reported knowledge and comfort and completion of EOL visits.

Background Interventions to support graduate medical education (GME) trainee well-being at the institutional level continue to be an area for continuous improvement. Objective To assess participation, feasibility, and acceptability of a virtual, individual, brief, nonevaluative opt-out approach to accessing mental health support for residents and fellows. Methods From 2021 to 2023, all GME programs at one large institution were invited to participate. During orientation, incoming trainees from programs that had communicated interest were prescheduled for optional 20-minute, virtual "meet and greet" sessions with a counselor from the hospital's Employee Assistance Program. Nonformal feedback was gathered using an anonymous 6-question survey. Results Three hundred thirty-four residents and fellows from 12 of 74 (16%) participating GME programs were prescheduled for opt-out sessions over 3 academic years. Of the 334, 182 (54%) attended the sessions, 116 (35%) subsequently reached out to start counseling, and 108 (32%) responded to the survey. Each year, approximately 7 counselor hours were needed for the opt-out sessions per week over an 8-week period, which was feasible and added no extra cost. In the follow-up survey shared with all participants, 59 of 81 (73%) respondents reported that the sessions helped to reduce barriers to seeking mental health care. Conclusions During orientation, one-half of invited GME trainees participated in a virtual, individual, brief, nonevaluative meet and greet session with a counselor using an opt-out approach, and one-third subsequently requested counseling. Survey feedback was encouraging, and this approach can serve to help normalize culture surrounding accessing mental health services.

Background The medical workplace presents challenges for workplace-based learning. Structured debriefing of shared clinical experiences has been proposed as a way to take advantage of workplace-based learning in a setting that facilitates deep learning conversations. Objective To investigate faculty and learner acceptance of private, face-to-face, structured debriefing of performance of entrustable professional activities (EPAs). Methods During the 2020-2021 academic year, faculty at the University of Colorado (CU) and the University of Utah (UU) debriefed fellow performance of jointly selected EPAs in neonatal-perinatal medicine pertinent to shared 1- to 3-week clinical rotations. Private face-to-face debriefing was structured by a comprehensive EPA-specific list of behavioral anchors describing 3 levels of entrustment/accomplishment. Sessions ended with joint decisions as to level of entrustment/accomplishment and goals for improvement. We used thematic analysis of semistructured fellow interviews and faculty focus groups to identify themes illustrated with representative quotations. Results We interviewed 17 fellows and 18 faculty. CU participants debriefed after clinical rotations; UU usually debriefed during rotations. Debriefing sessions for 1 to 2 EPAs lasted 20 to 40 minutes. Themes represented in fellow interviews and faculty focus groups suggested that debriefing facilitated formative feedback along with shared understanding of clinical performance and assessment criteria. The standardized format and private conversations supported assessment of aspects of performance for which review might otherwise have been overlooked or avoided. The conversations also provided valuable opportunities for formative discussion of other matters of importance to fellows. Conclusions Structured debriefing of recently shared clinical experiences fostered formative assessment viewed positively by teachers and learners.

Background Teaching faculty request timely feedback from residents to improve their skills. Yet even with anonymous processes, this upward feedback can be difficult to obtain as residents raise concerns about identification and repercussions. Objective To examine faculty perception of the quality and content of feedback from residents after increasing anonymity and sacrificing timeliness. Methods Between 2011 and 2017, an associate program director at a large internal medicine residency program met briefly with each resident individually to obtain feedback about their teaching faculty shortly after their rotation. To improve anonymity, residents were promised their feedback would not be released until they graduated. In 2019, all feedback was collated and released at one time to faculty. We administered 3 timed, voluntary, anonymous, 36-item closed-ended surveys to faculty asking about the content and value, and to self-identify whether the feedback was praise, constructive, or criticism. Results Exactly 189 faculty participated with 140 completing all 3 surveys (74.1% response rate). Faculty reported this feedback content to be of higher quality (81.0%, 81 of 100) and quantity (82.4%, 84 of 102) in contrast to prior feedback. More than 85.4% (88 of 103) of faculty agreed this feedback was more specific. Faculty identified less praise (median 35.0% vs median 50.0%, P<.001) and more negative constructive feedback (median 20.0% vs median 5.0%, P<.001) compared to prior feedback. More than 82% (116 of 140) of faculty reported it would change their behavior, but 3 months after receiving the feedback, only 63.6% (89 or 140) felt the same way (P<.001). Faculty were divided on the necessity of a time delay, with 41.4% (58 of 140) believing it reduced the feedback's value. Despite the delay, 32.1% (45 of 140) felt they could identify residents. Conclusions Offering a substantial delay in feedback delivery increased anonymity and enabled residents to furnish more nuanced and constructive comments; however, faculty opinions diverged on whether this postponement was valuable.

Background Graduate medical educators interested in designing and conducting education research may seek foundational general overview articles on education research methods. Objective We aimed to identify the most useful foundational education research methods articles for medical educators. Methods We identified candidate articles through a 2020 Ovid MEDLINE literature search augmented by the authors' personal files and by cross-checking references of included articles. Articles that were primarily about general education research principles were included; articles were excluded if they were not focused on medical education research methods, were published prior to the year 2000, were written in a non-English language, or had no available abstracts. We conducted a modified Delphi study with 10 participants representing a range of specialties and education research experience to find consensus about the most useful articles. We planned 3 rounds of the Delphi process, the first to eliminate any articles not deemed useful for this audience, and the second and third rounds to include articles that at least 80% of the panel deemed "most useful" to education researchers. Results Of 25 relevant articles identified in the literature search: one was excluded in round 1, 7 met the a priori threshold of 80% agreement for inclusion in round 2, and an additional 2 met inclusion in round 3. These 9 foundational education research methods articles relevant to graduate medical educators are described, along with a capsule summary and specific use for education researchers. Conclusions Our modified Delphi study of foundational education research methods articles identified 9 articles deemed useful for graduate medical educators who are seeking methods resources.