Developing and Implementing a Multisource Feedback Tool to Assess Competencies of Emergency Medicine Residents in the United States

Objectives: Multisource feedback (MSF) has potential value in learner assessment, but has not been broadly implemented nor studied in emergency medicine (EM). This study aimed to adapt existing MSF instruments for emergency department implementation, measure feasibility, and collect initial validity evidence to support score interpretation for learner assessment. Methods: Residents from eight U.S. EM residency programs completed a self-assessment and were assessed by eight physicians, eight nonphysician colleagues, and 25 patients using unique instruments. Instruments included a five-point rating scale to assess interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, systems-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, and patient care. MSF feasibility was measured by percentage of residents who collected the target number of instruments. To develop internal structure validity evidence, Cronbach\u27s alpha was calculated as a measure of internal consistency. Results: A total of 125 residents collected a mean of 7.0 physician assessments (n = 752), 6.7 nonphysician assessments (n = 775), and 17.8 patient assessments (n = 2,100) with respective response rates of 67.2, 75.2, and 77.5%. Cronbach\u27s alpha values for physicians, nonphysicians, patients, and self were 0.97, 0.97, 0.96, and 0.96, respectively. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that MSF implementation is feasible, although challenging. The tool and its scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency. EM educators may find the adaptation process and tools applicable to their learners

“Thinking too much”: A systematic review of a common idiom of distress

Idioms of distress communicate suffering via reference to shared ethnopsychologies, and better understanding of idioms of distress can contribute to effective clinical and public health communication. This systematic review is a qualitative synthesis of “thinking too much” idioms globally, to determine their applicability and variability across cultures. We searched eight databases and retained publications if they included empirical quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research regarding a “thinking too much” idiom and were in English. In total, 138 publications from 1979–2014 met inclusion criteria. We examined the descriptive epidemiology, phenomenology, etiology, and course of “thinking too much” idioms and compared them to psychiatric constructs. “Thinking too much” idioms typically reference ruminative, intrusive, and anxious thoughts and result in a range of perceived complications, physical and mental illnesses, or even death. These idioms appear to have variable overlap with common psychiatric constructs, including depression, anxiety, and PTSD. However, “thinking too much” idioms reflect aspects of experience, distress, and social positioning not captured by psychiatric diagnoses and often show wide within-cultural variation, in addition to between-cultural differences. Taken together, these findings suggest that “thinking too much” should not be interpreted as a gloss for psychiatric disorder nor assumed to be a unitary symptom or syndrome within a culture. We suggest five key ways in which engagement with “thinking too much” idioms can improve global mental health research and interventions: it (1) incorporates a key idiom of distress into measurement and screening to improve validity of efforts at identifying those in need of services and tracking treatment outcomes; (2) facilitates exploration of ethnopsychology in order to bolster cultural appropriateness of interventions; (3) strengthens public health communication to encourage engagement in treatment; (4) reduces stigma by enhancing understanding, promoting treatment-seeking, and avoiding unintentionally contributing to stigmatization; and (5) identifies a key locally salient treatment target