What are appropriate screening tests for infants and children?

There is adequate evidence for screening neonates for hemoglobinopathies, congenital hypothyroidism, phenylketonuria (strength of recommendation [SOR]: A), and cystic fibrosis (SOR: B). Vision screening should be done for those younger than age 5 years (SOR: B). High-risk children should be tested for tuberculosis (TB) (SOR: B) and lead toxicity (SOR: B). Few data exist to guide frequency and timing of these screening tests, so the following timing recommendations are based on consensus opinion (SOR: C): test for visual acuity yearly starting at age 3 years; test for TB and lead once between the ages of 9 and 12 months, and repeat for high risk or exposure

What are appropriate screening tests for adolescents?

Screen all women of childbearing age, including adolescents, for rubella susceptibility (strength of recommendation [SOR]: B). Screen all sexually active adolescent females for chlamydia (SOR: A), gonorrhea (SOR: B), and cervical cancer (SOR: A). High-risk, sexually active adolescents should be screened for HIV and syphilis (SOR: A). Screen all adolescents at risk for tuberculosis (TB) infection (SOR: A)

Evaluation of Apparent Life-Threatening Events in Infants

A comprehensive, detailed history and physical examination with pulse oximetry and nondilated funduscopy (to look for traumatic retinal hemorrhage) helps to determine the underlying etiology of an apparent life-threatening event (ALTE) in 70 percent of infants. (Strength of Recommendation [SOR]: C, based on case series). Initial diagnostic evaluation should include 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG); blood gas analysis; chest radiography; complete blood count (CBC); pertussis and respiratory syncytial virus cultures, if respiratory symptoms are present; serum electrolytes; and urinalysis. (SOR: C, expert opinion and case series)

Development and use of an instrument adapted to assess the clinical skills learning environment in the pre-clinical years

BACKGROUND: The Communication, Curriculum, and Culture (C3) instrument is a well-established survey for measuring the professional learning climate or hidden curriculum in the clinical years of medical school. However, few instruments exist for assessing professionalism in the pre-clinical years. We adapted the C3 instrument and assessed its utility during the pre-clinical years at two U.S. medical schools. METHODS: The ten-item Pre-Clinical C3 survey was adapted from the C3 instrument. Surveys were administered at the conclusion of the first and second years of medical school using a repeated cross-sectional design. Factor analysis was performed and Cronbach's alphas were calculated for emerging dimensions. RESULTS: The authors collected 458 and 564 surveys at two medical schools during AY06-07 and AY07-09 years, respectively. Factor analysis of the survey data revealed nine items in three dimensions: "Patients as Objects", "Talking Respectfully of Colleagues", and "Patient-Centered Behaviors". Reliability measures (Cronbach's alpha) for the Pre-Clinical C3 survey data were similar to those of the C3 survey for comparable dimensions for each school. Gender analysis revealed significant differences in all three dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: The Pre-Clinical C3 instrument's performance was similar to the C3 instrument in measuring dimensions of professionalism. As medical education moves toward earlier and more frequent clinical and inter-professional educational experiences, the Pre-Clinical C3 instrument may be especially useful in evaluating the impact of curricular revisions

Tools to Assess Behavioral and Social Science Competencies in Medical Education: A Systematic Review

Behavioral and social science (BSS) competencies are needed to provide quality health care, but psychometrically validated measures to assess these competencies are difficult to find. Moreover, they have not been mapped to existing frameworks, like those from the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). This systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate the quality of assessment tools used to measure BSS competencies

Tools to Assess Behavioral and Social Science Competencies in Medical Education

PurposeBehavioral and social science (BSS) competencies are needed to provide quality health care, but psychometrically validated measures to assess these competencies are difficult to find. Moreover, they have not been mapped to existing frameworks, like those from the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). This systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate the quality of assessment tools used to measure BSS competencies.MethodThe authors searched the literature published between January 2002 and March 2014 for articles reporting psychometric or other validity/reliability testing, using OVID, CINAHL, PubMed, ERIC, Research and Development Resource Base, SOCIOFILE, and PsycINFO. They reviewed 5,104 potentially relevant titles and abstracts. To guide their review, they mapped BSS competencies to existing LCME and ACGME frameworks. The final included articles fell into three categories: instrument development, which were of the highest quality; educational research, which were of the second highest quality; and curriculum evaluation, which were of lower quality.ResultsOf the 114 included articles, 33 (29%) yielded strong evidence supporting tools to assess communication skills, cultural competence, empathy/compassion, behavioral health counseling, professionalism, and teamwork. Sixty-two (54%) articles yielded moderate evidence and 19 (17%) weak evidence. Articles mapped to all LCME standards and ACGME core competencies; the most common was communication skills.ConclusionsThese findings serve as a valuable resource for medical educators and researchers. More rigorous measurement validation and testing and more robust study designs are needed to understand how educational strategies contribute to BSS competency development

Promotion Preparation Tips for Academic Family Medicine Educators

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Promotion has historically valued the scholarship of discovery over the scholarship of teaching. The clinician-educator promotion pathway is an attractive option for academic family physicians engaged in significant teaching. However, clinician-educators are less often promoted than peers on other tracks. Family medicine educators face unique challenges in promotion due to clinical requirements and often less guidance on how to meet promotion criteria. Promotion recognizes achievements of faculty and is often tied to higher base salary. We aimed to identify promotion preparation tips for academic family medicine educators. METHODS: We surveyed members of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) Medical Student Education Collaborative electronically on promotion preparation lessons learned in (1) curriculum vitae preparation, (2) personal statement preparation, (3) selecting external reviewers, and (4) identifying measurable achievements. This qualitative study used grounded theory and constant comparison. RESULTS: Fourteen individuals from 13 medical institutions responded with tips for success in promotion preparation. The tips identified actionable steps for promotion preparation of academic family medicine educators. Several main themes emerged, including the importance of timely and thorough documentation, detailed planning, and being knowledgeable about institutional-specific criteria early. CONCLUSIONS: The tips provided in this study support family medicine educators in preparing for promotion and can be used as a tool for mentors, chairs and faculty development