Smashing Stereotypes Using YouTube™ in Teaching – a Geriatric Medicine Perspective

By Michelle Gibson

Why Use Videos in Geriatric Medicine Teaching?

I teach first year medical students about the awesome world of geriatric medicine. I am a family medicine-Care of the Elderly trained doctor who loves her work, and although I am dutifully teaching about all the sacred geriatric syndromes (falls, confusion, frailty, etc.), my main motivation is to help (very) young medical students start to see why I fundamentally love my patients – because they are truly wonderful human beings.

Many students, most of whom are under 25, have little or no experience with seniors, particularly in health care settings, and some have unfortunately had negative experiences. Regardless of their experience, they, like all of us, are often bombarded by negative portrayals of older adults in the media.

To make matters worse, I am (ahem) “competing” with the following courses:

Pediatrics (cute babies and kids – unfair advantage), Genetics (the future of medicine according to everyone, with cool, high-tech tricks), and Musculoskeletal (broken bones! surgery! trauma!). I know my patients can take any of these competing patient populations in terms of general coolness, but my students don’t always realize this.

I have often invited my patients to come to class to discuss their experiences in the interdisciplinary outpatient program in which I am based, but due to their general frailty, this often doesn’t work out, and even when it does, there are many logistics barriers that must be overcome (such as a lack of accessible parking, but I digress).

My solution? I use carefully selected YouTube videos in class. I show these videos mostly at the beginning of class, so it also takes care of the (super-rare … or not) incidents of students arriving late for an 8:30 a.m. class, and missing my carefully constructed, brilliant opening teaching gambit.

Below, I have included a selection of the videos I use, including some information about how I found them, and why I use them.

Dancing Nana

This is one of the first videos I used, and it remains a fan favourite. Dancing Nana is 88 years young, and her grand-daughter takes her out for lunch every week. On this week, her grand-daughter played one of her grand-mother’s favourite songs, and you can see what happens next.

This video also illustrates one of the challenges of YouTube videos. The original video has had the audio blocked due to a copyright complaint. So far, as of today (February 2016), the music is intact here.

Why do I love it? Because Dancing Nana is real. She’s just like many of my patients. She has a great outfit, complete with her personal alarm system in place, and she puts her purse down to dance down the stairs. She is aging (she’s 88!) and but she loves life, and her granddaughter takes her out to lunch every week. It’s perfect.

It’s also a good length to show in class – 2.5 minutes long. How did I find Dancing Nana? I searched “old person dancing” on YouTube back in 2013. Complex search strategy, n’est-ce-pas?

I show this video before I teach about prescribing exercise to the elderly. I can’t think of a better introduction.

Pearls of Wisdom

This is a video I can use before any of my teaching sessions.

This is a lovely little video full of humour and poignancy. Older adults in a care home in the UK provide “Pearls of Wisdom” – which reflect lifetimes of experience.

This video makes me smile, and (sometimes) can make me tear up. The folks are eloquent, witty, and have obviously thought about what they are going to say – and each Pearl reflects their individual personality, which then shines through. The stars of the video really demonstrate the great spirits contained in older bodies, which are often frail. It really helps us appreciate the person and not the disease, age, or condition. I choose it because it demonstrates that one’s humanity does not depart upon admission to a care home.

Hal Lasko: Painting with technology

Hal Lasko is an amazing 97 year old man, who was losing his vision, and his grandson introduced him to a software program that allowed him to continue to “paint”. The video is in fact produced by a huge company (you’ll see if you watch the movie) but it’s really all about the amazing art that Hal can make using technology.
I think this video truly “smashes stereotypes”. Hal’s cognition appears very much intact, at the age of 97. He has embraced technology, and he makes art that most of us could never hope to make. He has a passion, and he pursues it, despite his disability.
How did I find Hal? I was searching for another video, since taken down, about “Old man painting”, and Hal popped up.

I do address explicitly in class that I have no financial affiliation with the company in question, nor have I ever used the product. I wish it wasn’t a commercial, but it is, so I just discuss it explicitly. I have decided not to use other videos that were produced by pharmaceutical companies, as I am not comfortable with the implied endorsement.

Mark Ronson ft. Bruno Mars – Uptown Funk “Oldtown Cover” ft. Alex Boye’, & The Dancing Grannies

Some videos are just plain fun, and need to be shown.
This one was posted by a friend of mine on Facebook (sometimes these videos just fall in my lap), but also by a number of first year students after I started to show the videos in the geriatrics unit. It’s a great resource. It’s impossible for students to ignore at the beginning of class and it works better than coffee to wake up in the morning. It’s got great seniors being, well, funky. It’s very clever.
I often point out that many of the seniors are “too young” for me, in terms of the patient population I see, but it’s important to me to show healthy aging at all ages.
As Alex Boyé says in the notes on YouTube:

“All the grandmas and Grandpas in this video did their own stunts 🙂
They range in age from 65-92! Between them, they have raised 500 children, 1,200 grandchildren, and 250 great grandchildren!!!”

(And not, I do not show videos to make me seem cool. That ship sailed eons ago. I don’t even pretend to try anymore. You get what you see- quirky, middle-aged, me.)

100 Year Old Drivers (I saved the best for last)

This is my all-time favourite teaching video. It’s actually much too long to show in class in its entirety, but it is so well done, that showing 3-5 minutes worth hooks many of my students. I give you, the BBC’s 100 Year Old Drivers. I encourage you to watch the first 5 minutes, but I should probably warn you not to do this unless you’re ready to devote 46 minutes to frequent, uncontrollable bursts of laughter.

This was another accidental find. I was searching YouTube for videos of centenarians and found this gem. Harry, Ken, Basil, and friends are spectacular. They’re amazing examples of healthy aging, with perfectly intact senses of humour. I dare you not to laugh WITH these amazing folks. Basil is my especial favourite – with his exercise program, his patents, and his tennis. (Intrigued yet?)

This video is actually a perfect teaching video for those of you who might have to teach about determining medical fitness to drive. If you do, you’re likely like me, and you dread it. Or rather, I used to dread it, until I found this video.

Now, I love teaching about driving. I use clips from this video to illustrate many features of aging and how they may (or may not!) affect driving safety. In addition, it leads to a great discussion about differences in regulations in different countries.

In this case, I embed the YouTube link into my slides (insert hyperlink works well), and I note when to start and stop the video right on the slide, and I post the link to the full video for my students.

Summary

I’ve received very positive feedback from students about my use of videos. It’s great to see students smiling as they watch these great folk, all of whom remind me of my own patients. Instead of seeing one patient in class, they see many over the course of my unit.

(For those who wonder, I do use lots of clinical videos in teaching- they are great for demonstrating movement disorders, gait analysis, etc, and they’re great resources for students. )

All the videos are of “regular” seniors- not famous folk, by design. I will only show videos where seniors are treated like adults, with respect. (This means there are many news interviews I won’t use, sadly, because they often have a patronizing “yes dear” tone to them that I can’t stand.)

Although some of the videos are more professionally produced than others, so long as the sound is clear, and the image is reasonably clear, I will consider using them. I try to match something to my teaching session, but even if I can’t, I still start with a video.

I have elected not to show videos that are negative in tone or portrayal of seniors, and I’m explicit with my students about this. They will see enough of ageist attitudes, and people treating seniors like children/problems/not worthy of care over and over and over again in their health care training, sadly. I aim to challenge stereotypes, have my students question their assumptions, and, ultimately, to have them think of their first year geriatrics unit with a smile.

In fact, every year, students themselves send me videos to use in class – which I view as a major victory in my efforts to engage students with the awesomeness of my patients!

Contact Information – Feel free to ask questions

Michelle Gibson
gibson@queensu.ca
@MCG_MedEd

 

Posted on

The Framing Effect, Donald Trump and the meaning of truly Informed Consent

Imagine you’re responsible for planning a public health response to a virulent disease that is expected to kill 600 people. You have to choose between two management programs:

  • If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.
  • If Program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that all 600 people will be saved, and a two-thirds probability that no one will be saved.

Once you’ve made your choice, consider the same scenario, but with the following options:

  • If Program C is adopted, 400 people will die.
  • If Program D is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die, and a two-thirds probability that 600 people will die.

This test was developed by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman and was published in Science in 1981. It’s also described in Kahneman’s remarkable 2011 book Thinking: Fast and Slow. Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel Prize for economics, Tversky having passed away in 1996 (apparently Nobel Prizes are never awarded posthumously).

Thinking Fast... Slow
Thinking Fast… Slow

It’s a test of willingness to accept risks, and part of their larger body of work on decision making behaviour. The pairs of options each require the participant to choose between accepting a sure thing (options A and C), or taking a risk (options B and D). Options A and C are factually identical (200 people live and 400 die in each), but differ in that they are expressed in either positive (A) or negative (C) terms. If our risk taking behaviour is consistent, choices should be the same for the two pairs. However, given the options outlined above, a significant majority of respondents (72%) chose Program A over B for the first selection, but then rejected the sure thing, favouring Program D (78%) over C in the second selection.

The differences relate to how the options are expressed, or “framed”. In the first pair, the choices are designed to focus on saving people. In the second, the focus is on how many people will die. When the intention is to save lives, it appears we are risk averse. When the situation is seen to be bleak and inevitably fatal, we are much more willing to engage risk. Put another way, when given choices that result in fundamentally identical outcomes, most people will avoid risk when they perceive potential gain, but are willing to engage risk when confronted with potential losses. “Framing” of our choices is therefore hugely influential.

Kahneman and Tversky describe this as the “psychophysics of value” and describe two ways of thinking. “System 1” thinking is automatic, involuntary and intuitive. It’s also easy, requiring very little effort – “lazy” thinking, one might say. “System 2” thinking is computational, requiring attention, time and effort. We have to actively decide to undertake System 2 thinking. They are the “fast” and “slow” options referred to in the title of Kahneman’s book. The thought experiment described above is System 1 thinking very much in action. World economies, stock markets, politics, advertising and consumerism are all very much about how System 1 thinking can be promoted and manipulated. Hence, the Nobel Prize.

Donald TrumpWe don’t have to go far these days to find an example of this principle in action. Donald Trump’s bombastic rhetoric in the American presidential primaries seems, at least in part, an attempt to “frame” the dialogue in negative terms (American weakness, vulnerability and multiple perceived foreign threats). By doing so, he develops a sense of fear for the future that he hopes will encourage the electorate to engage a risky, non-conventional alternative (i.e. him). Since Mr. Trump has basically no experience in elected office, foreign affairs or any of the expected concerns of a potential president, he needs to steer people away from System 2 thinking. He’s been doing a remarkably, frighteningly, effective job to date.

If you think physicians are above such influences, apparently you’d be mistaken. Tversky and his colleagues carried out a study at the Harvard Medical School wherein physicians were given information about the expected outcomes for surgical versus radiotherapy approaches to lung cancer (McNeil et al. New England Journal of Medicine 1982; 306:1259-62). The five-year survival rates favoured surgery, but with greater short term risk. Half the physicians participating were provided information that focused on survival (one month survival rate 90%), whereas the others were given mortality rates (10% mortality in the first month). Guess what? Eighty-four percent of the Harvard physicians favoured surgery given the first description, compared with only 50% when given the second description. System 1 thinking dominates when we focus on bad outcomes.

So how is all this relevant to medical students and practicing physicians? There are clear implications for our understanding of the concept of informed consent. In Ontario, this comes under the Health Care Consent Act of 1996, which reads, in part:

Consent is not valid unless it is informed. A physician must provide a patient with information about the nature of the treatment, its expected benefits, its material risks and side effects, alternative courses of action and the likely consequences of not having the treatment.

The following clause describes the terms “information” as follows:

The information provided to a patient must be information that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would require in order to make a decision about the treatment.

All, seemingly, very reasonable. However, given what we now understand about the power of framing in making critical choices, it appears making a choice is about much more than the factual content of information provided. The manner in which options are provided and the way in which outcomes are presented will be very influential in determining the response. Imagine an elderly patient with coronary and mitral valve disease who is highly symptomatic and considering surgery for both symptom relief and prolonged hospital free survival. Consider the following three presentations, all of which are factually true:

  1. “There’s a 90% chance that you’ll survive and be home within two weeks.”
  2. “The surgery carries a 10% risk of dying either in the operating room or within two weeks after.”
  3. “There’s no chance you’ll be alive within two years without surgery.”

Do you think there’s a difference in how patients and their families will respond to those three statements?

Do you think the person delivering those options has capacity to manipulate the decision?

Is this a problem?

I think we’d all agree that the answer to the first two questions I’ve posed is unquestionably “yes”. The third is obviously controversial.

Legislation is important and necessary to ensure protection of the public, but it will always be limited in its ability to penetrate the individual relationship between physician and patient. Its role is to balance the need to ensure rights that protect the vulnerable, while not handcuffing or interfering with the delivery of individual care. One can only respect the intention and great challenge of lawmakers who struggle to achieve that balance.

Physicians will therefore always bear a high responsibility in counseling about medical decisions. While it’s true that the patient and chosen advisors always have the “final say”, it’s both disingenuous and irresponsible for physicians to suggest that informed consent begins and ends with the provision of factual information. There’s no escaping the high responsibility that goes with advising. There’s no short cut. Truly informed consent can only be provided by someone who truly understands the patient’s full history, personal situation, wishes and ability to process information. Moreover, it can only be provided by someone who not only understands all that, but also has the patient’s best interest as their primary goal. In our increasingly busy, hospital and service-centred approach to acute care, all this is becoming more difficult to provide.

Are there solutions? Increasing involvement of primary care physicians or non-physician providers, advanced directives and enhanced access to all medical records will all help. At the heart of the matter, however, must be a recognition that the process of deciding to undertake a particular treatment or procedure is at least as important as its actual provision, and should be recognized as such.

Physicians can’t, and shouldn’t avoid being influential in patient decision-making. Is that a problem? Not if that influence is rooted in a truly caring relationship, informed by a deep understanding of the patient’s full situation, wishes and aspirations.

 

 

Anthony J. Sanfilippo, MD, FRCP(C)
Associate Dean,
Undergraduate Medical Education

 

Posted on

The Framing Effect, Donald Trump and the meaning of truly Informed Consent

Imagine you’re responsible for planning a public health response to a virulent disease that is expected to kill 600 people. You have to choose between two management programs:

  • If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.
  • If Program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that all 600 people will be saved, and a two-thirds probability that no one will be saved.

Once you’ve made your choice, consider the same scenario, but with the following options:

  • If Program C is adopted, 400 people will die.
  • If Program D is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die, and a two-thirds probability that 600 people will die.

This test was developed by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman and was published in Science in 1981. It’s also described in Kahneman’s remarkable 2011 book Thinking: Fast and Slow. Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel Prize for economics, Tversky having passed away in 1996 (apparently Nobel Prizes are never awarded posthumously).

Thinking Fast... Slow
Thinking Fast… Slow

It’s a test of willingness to accept risks, and part of their larger body of work on decision making behaviour. The pairs of options each require the participant to choose between accepting a sure thing (options A and C), or taking a risk (options B and D). Options A and C are factually identical (200 people live and 400 die in each), but differ in that they are expressed in either positive (A) or negative (C) terms. If our risk taking behaviour is consistent, choices should be the same for the two pairs. However, given the options outlined above, a significant majority of respondents (72%) chose Program A over B for the first selection, but then rejected the sure thing, favouring Program D (78%) over C in the second selection.

The differences relate to how the options are expressed, or “framed”. In the first pair, the choices are designed to focus on saving people. In the second, the focus is on how many people will die. When the intention is to save lives, it appears we are risk averse. When the situation is seen to be bleak and inevitably fatal, we are much more willing to engage risk. Put another way, when given choices that result in fundamentally identical outcomes, most people will avoid risk when they perceive potential gain, but are willing to engage risk when confronted with potential losses. “Framing” of our choices is therefore hugely influential.

Kahneman and Tversky describe this as the “psychophysics of value” and describe two ways of thinking. “System 1” thinking is automatic, involuntary and intuitive. It’s also easy, requiring very little effort – “lazy” thinking, one might say. “System 2” thinking is computational, requiring attention, time and effort. We have to actively decide to undertake System 2 thinking. They are the “fast” and “slow” options referred to in the title of Kahneman’s book. The thought experiment described above is System 1 thinking very much in action. World economies, stock markets, politics, advertising and consumerism are all very much about how System 1 thinking can be promoted and manipulated. Hence, the Nobel Prize.

Donald TrumpWe don’t have to go far these days to find an example of this principle in action. Donald Trump’s bombastic rhetoric in the American presidential primaries seems, at least in part, an attempt to “frame” the dialogue in negative terms (American weakness, vulnerability and multiple perceived foreign threats). By doing so, he develops a sense of fear for the future that he hopes will encourage the electorate to engage a risky, non-conventional alternative (i.e. him). Since Mr. Trump has basically no experience in elected office, foreign affairs or any of the expected concerns of a potential president, he needs to steer people away from System 2 thinking. He’s been doing a remarkably, frighteningly, effective job to date.

If you think physicians are above such influences, apparently you’d be mistaken. Tversky and his colleagues carried out a study at the Harvard Medical School wherein physicians were given information about the expected outcomes for surgical versus radiotherapy approaches to lung cancer (McNeil et al. New England Journal of Medicine 1982; 306:1259-62). The five-year survival rates favoured surgery, but with greater short term risk. Half the physicians participating were provided information that focused on survival (one month survival rate 90%), whereas the others were given mortality rates (10% mortality in the first month). Guess what? Eighty-four percent of the Harvard physicians favoured surgery given the first description, compared with only 50% when given the second description. System 1 thinking dominates when we focus on bad outcomes.

So how is all this relevant to medical students and practicing physicians? There are clear implications for our understanding of the concept of informed consent. In Ontario, this comes under the Health Care Consent Act of 1996, which reads, in part:

Consent is not valid unless it is informed. A physician must provide a patient with information about the nature of the treatment, its expected benefits, its material risks and side effects, alternative courses of action and the likely consequences of not having the treatment.

The following clause describes the terms “information” as follows:

The information provided to a patient must be information that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would require in order to make a decision about the treatment.

All, seemingly, very reasonable. However, given what we now understand about the power of framing in making critical choices, it appears making a choice is about much more than the factual content of information provided. The manner in which options are provided and the way in which outcomes are presented will be very influential in determining the response. Imagine an elderly patient with coronary and mitral valve disease who is highly symptomatic and considering surgery for both symptom relief and prolonged hospital free survival. Consider the following three presentations, all of which are factually true:

  1. “There’s a 90% chance that you’ll survive and be home within two weeks.”
  2. “The surgery carries a 10% risk of dying either in the operating room or within two weeks after.”
  3. “There’s no chance you’ll be alive within two years without surgery.”

Do you think there’s a difference in how patients and their families will respond to those three statements?

Do you think the person delivering those options has capacity to manipulate the decision?

Is this a problem?

I think we’d all agree that the answer to the first two questions I’ve posed is unquestionably “yes”. The third is obviously controversial.

Legislation is important and necessary to ensure protection of the public, but it will always be limited in its ability to penetrate the individual relationship between physician and patient. Its role is to balance the need to ensure rights that protect the vulnerable, while not handcuffing or interfering with the delivery of individual care. One can only respect the intention and great challenge of lawmakers who struggle to achieve that balance.

Physicians will therefore always bear a high responsibility in counseling about medical decisions. While it’s true that the patient and chosen advisors always have the “final say”, it’s both disingenuous and irresponsible for physicians to suggest that informed consent begins and ends with the provision of factual information. There’s no escaping the high responsibility that goes with advising. There’s no short cut. Truly informed consent can only be provided by someone who truly understands the patient’s full history, personal situation, wishes and ability to process information. Moreover, it can only be provided by someone who not only understands all that, but also has the patient’s best interest as their primary goal. In our increasingly busy, hospital and service-centred approach to acute care, all this is becoming more difficult to provide.

Are there solutions? Increasing involvement of primary care physicians or non-physician providers, advanced directives and enhanced access to all medical records will all help. At the heart of the matter, however, must be a recognition that the process of deciding to undertake a particular treatment or procedure is at least as important as its actual provision, and should be recognized as such.

Physicians can’t, and shouldn’t avoid being influential in patient decision-making. Is that a problem? Not if that influence is rooted in a truly caring relationship, informed by a deep understanding of the patient’s full situation, wishes and aspirations.

 

 

Anthony J. Sanfilippo, MD, FRCP(C)
Associate Dean,
Undergraduate Medical Education

 

Posted on

Keeping things fresh: Routine doesn’t have to be boring

It’s February, and despite the recent Family Day holiday, we’re still stuck in the depths of winter. Things are just a little harder to get excited about when it’s bleak, cold and snowy. Add in the task of teaching something that’s become routine, and the doldrums can be nearly certain to set in.

It can be a challenge for experts to teach introductory content. This can be further exacerbated by the cycle of teaching: each year brings another round of the same—or very similar—material. When the old adage of reminding yourself that while this is the hundredth time you’ve taught this, it’s the first time for these learners just isn’t enough, how can you get excited about teaching for the 101st time?

Here are five suggestions to ramp up your enthusiasm:

  1. Back to basics: What do you want your learners to know or be able to do when you’re done? Sometimes when teaching becomes routine, we’ve actually lost focus on the goal. Make a quick list of your key take-away points. If you’re not sure, take some time to reflect and make revisions to your teaching plan.
  2. Get some feedback: Add in some formative assessment either partway through your learning event, or partway through your sessions if you are teaching multiple times. This gives you—and them—feedback partway through to make sure things are clear. Formative assessment can be individual or team-based and doesn’t necessarily have marks attached. It can be as simple as an online poll to gauge understanding of a key concept.
  3. Refresh the page: Since the underlying concepts haven’t changed, it’s easy to slip into a rut of repeating yourself. Even if it’s new to this group of learners, you’ll be more engaged if you freshen your cases, or revise the background materials you assign. Is there something in the news that’s timely and on-point?
  4. Toss in technology: It may strike you as gimmicky, but using technology can freshen “old” material. Consider incorporating PollEverywhere’s polling (which you can use for #2 above) or incorporating a short video for discussion.
  5. Ask for input: Bounce ideas around with colleagues, brainstorm with others teaching in your course. Ask your course director for feedback. If you’re the course director, that conversation can work both ways: ask for input from your team.

Keeping things fresh for yourself can help your learners. Your excitement and enthusiasm contributes to a climate of learning. If you’re looking for more ways to shake things up but you’d like some customized advice, get in touch with the Education Team. We’re here to help.

Posted on

7th Annual QHIP Speaker Series underway

The 7th Annual Queen’s Health Interprofessionals (QHIP) Speaker Series launched last week, but there’s still time for students to register for the remaining workshops.

FullSizeRender(8)

Each workshop takes place on Mondays from 6:30 – 8 p.m in Room 132 at the Medical Building. The series is free, but you need to register to attend. (Here’s the form: http://goo.gl/forms/xgH2k2ao2U). Those who attend at least four workshops are eligible to receive and Interprofessional Education Certificate.

While some of these topics are covered in uni-professional classrooms, this is an opportunity to address these complex issues as an interprofessional group of students.

For more information on QHIP, check out their page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/QHIPSociety/

 

Posted on

Is “Apprenticeship” Dead? The case for clinical service in medical education

An “apprentice” is someone who works for a fully qualified individual for the purpose of learning a trade. Although the term has taken on a somewhat negative connotation of semi-indentured servitude, the word itself, interestingly, shares entomologic roots with French verb apprendre (to learn), and the Latin apprehendere (to “grasp” or understand). It would seem then that apprenticeships are intended to be primarily educational endeavors.

Apprenticeships served admirably as the original model of medical education. Eager and bright young people who wished to become doctors would enter the service of an established practitioner, in the same way that aspiring masons or carpenters would engage training from masters of those trades. The apprenticeship provided, in addition to instruction in fundamental knowledge and skills, on-the-job, supervised practice training. Presumably, the level of responsibility and independence of the learner increased progressively over the period of training but, in fact, the contractual arrangements, terms of service and educational program were entirely at the whim of the “master” without consistent standards or regulation. At the end of the agreed-to term of service, the learner would receive the endorsement of the teacher and, after submitting to whatever regulatory process might exist, enter independent practice.

Our Clinical Clerkships and Residency programs are modern day vestiges of the apprenticeship model, the major points of departure being the organizational (school-based) rather than individual focus, and considerably expanded, highly defined and rigorously regulated educational expectations. However, the delicate interlacing of the two fundamental components-education and supervised clinical practice-remains the core, defining characteristic. As those two elements combine (as illustrated in the diagram below),three domains of activity are defined.

3domainsofactivityThe purely educational activities consist of scheduled rounds, conferences, academic days, assessments and various other structured events. Learners are either expected or required to attend. Together, these events provide an established “protected” learning curriculum. These events are deliberately, completely separated from clinical service in order to ensure opportunities exist for the requisite learning.

There are also activities where clinical service and education overlap and occur simultaneously. These consist of clinical activities where learners and teaching faculty work together in the delivery of care, such as clinics, operating rooms, procedural suites and emergency departments. In these settings, the learner is directly supervised, is involved in care delivery to the extent their training and acquired skills allows, and receives instruction ‘on the fly’. The “curriculum” is defined not by a pre-determined schedule, but by the issues presented by the patients receiving care.

This leaves a third component of clinical service that can be considered either indirectly supervised, or independently provided. This consists of activities appropriate to the learner’s qualification and can be considered the “scope of practice” at that point in his or her training. Examples vary considerably, but could consist of ordering basic investigations, prescribing, charting, minor procedures, and patient assessments. As learners progress in training, their “scope of practice” escalates accordingly. This more distinctly service role is recognized officially in the residents’ hospital or practice privileges, provision of payment for service, and development of professional organizations such as PARO which recognize residents as service providers and work to protect that role.

To extend the illustration above, the spheres progressively diverge until, at the end of training, they separate completely as the learner assumes independent practice and, with it, complete responsibility for both their clinical and educational activities. The latter is, in fact, an expression of professional identity.prof-practice

The balance between these two domains and three spheres of activity within medical training has been, and remains, contentious and a point of competitive tension. The need to vigorously protect the educational components of residency training has been very appropriately promoted through the development and protection of core curriculum within training programs and mandated by accreditation standards. The need to put limits on the clinical role has also been recognized and effectively enforced through accreditation and professional organizations that advocate for their members by, historically, promoting protection of purely educational endeavours above purely clinical service activities. The move to more competency-based models of residency education brings many potential advantages, but by formalizing and emphasizing educational processes, may further sideline the clinical service role.

It could certainly be argued that we’ve passed a tipping point where our emphasis on protection of educational activities has diminished the value of clinical service and portrayed to our learner the impression that avoidance is somehow virtuous. This would be appropriate if clinical service had no educational value and was simply a distraction from “pure” learning experiences. But is this the case? Is there an educational price to be paid for reduced clinical service experiences during training? Is it reasonable to consider residency as a “job” in and of itself with expectations of service independent of direct educational context? Expressing the issue another way: is there, in fact, educational value in the provision of clinical service? Some compelling arguments can be made:

The practice of medicine is much greater than the sum of the educational components. It is a complex interplay of scientific knowledge, specific technical skills, and an ability to understand and relate to the individual human situations in all their variety and complexity. There is something about engaging these situations individually that is far beyond what can be attained in any classroom or even directly supervised situation. The ability to do so in a nonetheless safe setting, with understood limits and readily available help is the core educational value of clinical service delivery.

Personal growth and development of professional identity. People in any human endeavour learn by engaging personal challenges and confronting adversity. This is certainly true of developing physicians. In medical school, it begins with the first time a student has a one-on-one encounter with a patient. It progresses steadily through training, but whether it is performing a minor procedure, an assessment in clinic or attending to a distressed patient with an urgent problem, these are all opportunities to grow as providers in a protected and supervised setting where optimal patient care is not only assured, but likely enhanced. This provides training physicians the opportunity to not only learn clinical medicine, but also about their own individual strengths and weaknesses in a way that can’t be reproduced in any artificial educational setting. That self-awareness is essential to professional development and critical to career decisions. Strong personal preferences or deficiencies should be identified and addressed during training, not after graduation to independent practice.

Our patients are our best teachers. Great physicians learn from every patient encounter, no matter how apparently straightforward or routine. This is the basis of lifelong learning. If the practice of valuing and learning from every patient encounter is not engaged and refined progressively during training, will it be developed in independent practice?

Valuing clinical service as a privilege, not a chore. The core mission of Medicine, and of physicians, is the provision of clinical service to our patients. To them, there is no “scut work”. If we don’t value clinical service as an educational community, what message are we sending to our learners? Are they graduating to a career of uninspiring and boring chores? In an educational sense, the development of clinical competence and increasing independence should be recognized, highly valued and accompanied by increasing status and prestige.

Pragmatically, there already exists a contractual definition of residency as a “job” with compensation and obligations. Rather than live in denial of this reality, we might be better advised to engage the balance between those obligations and educational development in a thoughtful way ensuring the optimal expression and value of both aspects.

Finally, we must recognize that this is no longer a theoretical discussion or abstract educational concept. Clinical care is becoming more, not less, demanding within our schools, outpatient clinical settings and academic teaching hospitals. Education and clinical service delivery are on a collision course that can only be averted by recognizing that these two aspects of medical education are individually necessary and mutually interdependent. Both must be preserved. We must recognize this essential duality, particularly as we go about developing newer models for both undergraduate and postgraduate education.

 

Anthony J. Sanfilippo, MD, FRCP(C)
Associate Dean,
Undergraduate Medical Education

 

Posted on

“When the patient fainted, her eyes rolled around the room”: How to make medical charting clear and accurate.

Recently Dr. Maurice Bernstein from The Keck School of Medicine, at University of Southern California, wrote into the listserve DR ED with this intriguing question:

I find many first and second year medical students present their patient write-ups for their instructor’s review with errors both typographical but also errors in presentation that makes statements seriously ambiguous.  I tell my students to read what they have written and then re-read again as an individual who knows nothing about the patient.  In addition, I have presented them with a list of “comic” but presumably also realistic medical charting errors. 

Is there something more I can do to teach the students to be more attentive particularly later when what they write for the record has greater clinical significance for the patient than a first or second year student?

MEDICAL CHARTING ERRORS 

  • By the time he was admitted, his rapid heart had stopped, and he was feeling better.
  • Patient has chest pain if she lies on her left side for over a year.
  • On the second day the knee was better and on the third day it had completely disappeared.
  • She has had no rigors or shaking chills, but her husband said she was very hot in bed last night.
  • The patient has been depressed ever since she began seeing me in 1986.
  • Patient was released to outpatient department without dressing.I have suggested that he loosen his pants before standing, and then when he stands with the help of his wife, they should fall to the floor.
  • The patient is tearful and crying constantly. She also appears to be depressed.
  • Discharge status: Alive but without permission.
  • The patient will need disposition, and therefore we will get Dr. Shapiro to dispose of him.
  • Healthy appearing decrepit 67 year old male, mentally alert, but forgetful.
  • The patient refused an autopsy.
  • The patient has no past history of suicides.
  • The patient expired on the floor uneventfully.
  • Patient has left his white blood cells at another hospital.
  • The patient’s past medical history has been remarkably insignificant with only a 45 pound weight gain in the past three days.help pile of records
  • She slipped on the ice and apparently her legs went in separate directions in early January.
  • The patient experienced sudden onset of severe shortness of breath with a picture of acute pulmonary edema at home while having sex which gradually deteriorated in the emergency room.
  • The patient had waffles for breakfast and anorexia for lunch.
  • Between you and me, we ought to be able to get this lady pregnant.
  • The patient was in his usual state of good health until his airplane ran out of gas and crashed.
  • She is numb from her toes down.
  • While in the ER, she was examined, X-rated and sent home.
  • The skin was moist and dry.
  • Occasional, constant, infrequent headaches.
  • Coming from New York, this man has no children.
  • Patient was alert and unresponsive.
  • When she fainted, her eyes rolled around the room.

After I finished giggling, I started to think…this is a problem with an educational and literacy component. What does educational pedagogy teach us to assist with this issue?

So here are a few ideas from my experience as an educator —these could be potential teaching strategies.   BTW, don’t do all of these…:)  1-3 should make some impact.

  1.  Work with this list: Give students the charting errors list above—it will be a good teaching moment for them and help them see how awful some of their errors could be.  You could ask them in partners (to share the fun) to correct the errors as best they can, reading between the lines, or to create a set of questions that would help clarify some of them. In other words, put them in the role of the teacher.
  1. Think of busy times: Ask students to list the times they may be most busy in a clinical setting.  This list should be posted for them to remind them that these are the times they need to slow down and focus most, ironically, on their writing.

    Busy? Slow down.
    Busy? Slow down.
  1.  Writing and recall for purpose:
think of the patient
Think of the patient.

a. Ask students to generate a list of purposes for charting; writing for purpose is a strong strategy for improving writing. I’m hopeful some of the purposes will be:  pay respect to the patient’s illness and the patient (patient-centred care), safe care for handover and for others reading the chart, legal documents for liability, etc.

b. Then, ask students to keep these in mind as they chart.  Mindful exercises could include using a symbol to associate with each purpose—drawing it, literally, or drawing it clearly in their minds, using a key word to help them recall, or if they tend to associate sounds, or colours with concepts, they could do that.

handover
Here’s my image for handover, for example. Don’t drop the baton.

Ask students pause for exactly 3 seconds prior to charting to collect their mind, to steady their writing and to recall these purposes.  Actually 3 seconds is like taking a deep breath.

NOTE:  thinking about the target audience, as in “Who potentially is going to read this?” can also achieve a impact.

  1.  Simulated chart exercise: Give students a simulated case and a chart exercise and a very stringent time limit.  Ask them to work in pairs and edit each other’s notes after the exercise.  OR, use “Pass It On” strategy, where students affix a nickname, or number to their work (to preserve anonymity and dignity :)) and pass the chart along to the left, so that at least 4 people get to weigh in on it with feedback.  NOTE:  this is also a good exercise in how to give feedback—warn them against being sarcastic, or harsh—their time will come! Ask students to practice good feedback techniques:  being specific, offering suggestions, avoiding judgements of the person, focusing on the writing, etc.
  1. Read the chart entry aloud.  Ask students to practice this.  This takes approximately 6 seconds at most (depending on the chart).  Reading a piece of writing aloud is another recommended editing strategy practiced by writers.

    each-word
    Read it out loud.
  1. Be careful with the use of abbreviations and acronyms which are not commonly used or can be ambiguous in interpretation. For their patient write ups, except for absolutely classic clinical acronyms such as C for “centigrade” or BP for “blood pressure”, the words should be written out such as “myocardial infarction” and NOT “MI” since MI could also represent “mitral insufficiency”. You could teach students that if any obscure acronym is to be used later on in the text, in its first use, the full expression should be written then followed in parentheses with the acronym noted.  Unfortunately, also, many acronyms or abbreviations in medical use are not written in a standardized manner between one institution and another and this can also lead to errors if not recognized. Bottom line: avoid or be really careful. (Thanks to Dr. Maurice Bernstein for this tip.)
  1. Avoid General statements: I got this feedback to a student from a nursing blog article by Katie Morales called 17 Tips to Improve Your Nursing Documentation.

Teacher: For example, you wrote “Dr. Smith called.” Did you mean: you called and are waiting for a return phone call; physician called nurse; or nurse called and spoke to physician?”  A better option is “MD

EmergencyResidencyStudents
Work with a partner and correct.

paged, assessment findings discussed, and no additional orders at this time.” 

 

Similar to strategy 1, I would give the students general statements where they can figure out what’s going on, similar to Ms. Morales’ example.  I’d work through one or two on the screen with the students first.

 

  1.  Checklist of common charting errors:  Making a checklist of these for students is helpful and having it handy when they are charting is also helpful (make it pocket-sized).  Checklists are a helpful literacy tool—no reason they shouldn’t work with charting literacy:  Here are errors from a good module RN.com has: Professional Documentation:  Safe Effective Legal.  (Students could make it into an alpha list or an acronym list). Most of these would be applicable for physicians as well as nurses. (You might want to make them positive: e.g. “Record Pertinent Health or Drug Information.”)

3d small person makes a tick in cell. 3d image. White background.

Common charting mistakes to avoid include the following:

  1. Failing to record pertinent health or drug information
  2. Failing to record nursing actions
  3. Failing to record that medications have been given
  4. Recording in the wrong patient’s medical record
  5. Failing to document a discontinued medication
  6. Failing to record drug reactions or changes in the patient’s condition
  7. Transcribing orders improperly or transcribing improper orders
  8. Writing illegible or incomplete records
from:  Nurses Service Organization, 2008, pp. 4 – 5

From a medical standpoint: Take a look at: Top 10 documentation error pitfalls: from Wisconsin Medical Society: 2008.

  1.  Teach with examples.  Show students excellent examples of charting to give them the necessary language for their work.  Give them criteria that facilitate effective charting.  Look back at the RN.com for some great criteria! As well CMA (Canadian Medical Association) has a good module called Medical Records Management with 31 (!) criteria for effective charting.

NOTE:  I’ve never met anyone who can keep to a 31 point checklist, but the criteria cited are all really important, so…perhaps students can check off the ones they think they do well already, and star the ones they need to work on.  A sampling of their work in clerkship (observation and feedback—still necessary) will demonstrate their self-assessment skills as well as how well they record.

10.  For senior clerks and residents: The  nursing module, RN.com: Professional Documentation:  Safe Effective Legal, has a list of situations that are classified as high stakes documentation.  This would be critical information for senior clerks and residents. (You’ll see that I’m citing nursing education here a lot: Nurse Researchers and Nurse Educators do excellent work on health and education.)

charts patient safety handover
For Residents and Senior Clerks

In Ratnapalan et al, Charting Errors in a Teaching Hospital, these suggestions for residency are included:

  • Many training programs recognize that residents in their first month may have charting errors and have put in place orientation programs, increased supervision from senior residents and staff, and a more thorough review of the notes that are written by new residents.
  • The ED at the Hospital for Sick Children is the only dedicated pediatric emergency department in the city of Toronto, and 380 to 400 trainees rotate through the department annually. Currently, there are orientation packages, orientation sessions, and a Web-based orientation available for trainees to teach accurate charting of emergency records.
  • The orientation package is a large binder with complete instructions on goals and expectations, codes of conduct, medical record keeping, handling of specimens, procedures, and academic activities.

Glad to get feedback on these strategies, and add to the list! What do you suggest?

send us your suggestions

Posted on