Background

Faculty and students debate the fairness and accuracy of medical student clerkship grades. Group decision-making is a potential strategy to improve grading.

Objective

To explore how one school's grading committee members integrate assessment data to inform grade decisions and to identify the committees' benefits and challenges.

Design

This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with grading committee chairs and members conducted between November 2017 and March 2018.

Participants

Participants included the eight core clerkship directors, who chaired their grading committees. We randomly selected other committee members to invite, for a maximum of three interviews per clerkship.

Approach

Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive content analysis.

Key results

We interviewed 17 committee members. Within and across specialties, committee members had distinct approaches to prioritizing and synthesizing assessment data. Participants expressed concerns about the quality of assessments, necessitating careful scrutiny of language, assessor identity, and other contextual factors. Committee members were concerned about how unconscious bias might impact assessors, but they felt minimally impacted at the committee level. When committee members knew students personally, they felt tension about how to use the information appropriately. Participants described high agreement within their committees; debate was more common when site directors reviewed students' files from other sites prior to meeting. Participants reported multiple committee benefits including faculty development and fulfillment, as well as improved grading consistency, fairness, and transparency. Groupthink and a passive approach to bias emerged as the two main threats to optimal group decision-making.

Conclusions

Grading committee members view their practices as advantageous over individual grading, but they feel limited in their ability to address grading fairness and accuracy. Recommendations and support may help committees broaden their scope to address these aspirations.

BACKGROUND: Despite similar numbers of women and men in internal medicine (IM) residency, women face unique challenges. Stereotype threat is hypothesized to contribute to underrepresentation of women in academic leadership, and exploring how it manifests in residency may provide insight into forces that perpetuate gender disparities. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the prevalence of stereotype threat in IM residency and explore experiences contributing to that stereotype threat. DESIGN: We used a mixed methods study design. First, we surveyed IM residents using the Stereotype Vulnerability Scale (SVS) to screen for stereotype threat. Second, we conducted focus groups with women who scored high on the SVS to understand experiences that led to stereotype threat. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to all IM residents at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in September-November 2019. Focus groups were conducted at UCSF in Spring 2020. APPROACH: The survey included an adapted version of the SVS. For focus groups, we developed a focus group guide informed by literature on stereotype threat. We used a thematic approach to data analysis. The mixed methods design enabled us to draw metainferences by integrating the two data sources. KEY RESULTS: Survey response rate was 61% (110/181). Women were significantly more likely than men to have a score indicating stereotype threat vulnerability (77% vs 0%, p < 0.001). Four themes from focus groups characterized womens experiences of gender bias and stereotype threat: gender norm tension, microaggressions and sexual harassment, authority questioned, and support and allyship. CONCLUSIONS: Gender-based stereotype threat is highly prevalent among women IM residents. This phenomenon poses a threat to confidence and ability to execute patient care responsibilities, detracting from well-being and professional development. These findings indicate that, despite robust representation of women in IM training, further attention is needed to address gendered experiences and contributors to womens vulnerability to stereotype threat.

Small-volume biopsies (SVBs) including fine-needle aspiration (FNA), cell block, and needle core biopsies (NCB) are increasingly utilized to diagnose and guide the clinical management of lymphoma. We established a multi-institutional interdisciplinary collaboration of cytopathologists, hematopathologists, and oncologists focused on the role of SVB in the management of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). To assess the performance characteristics of SVB in this setting, we evaluated all consecutive SVBs performed for clinical indications of initial diagnosis, recurrence, or transformation of FL over a 5-year period and focused on the 182 that had at least one subsequent biopsy within 3 months as part of the same clinical work-up. The most common outcome of a subsequent biopsy as part of the same clinical work-up was a more specific diagnosis usually assigning the pathologic grade (111/182, 61%), followed by a complete agreement with the SVB (24/182, 13%), and change from nondiagnostic on initial biopsy to diagnostic on subsequent biopsy (21/182, 12%). A minority resulted in a diagnostic change from benign to lymphoma (17/182, 9%), a change in FL grade (5/182, 3%), or change in the lymphoma diagnostic category (4/182, 2%). There were no cases where an initial diagnosis of lymphoma was overturned. The distribution of discrepancies was similar across initial SVB types (FNA, FNA + cell block, NCB with or without FNA). Tissue limitations were noted in a minority of cases (53/182, 29%) and were enriched among initially nondiagnostic biopsies (16/21, 76%). Flow cytometry immunophenotyping was performed in the majority of cases both at the first and last biopsy (147/182, 81%). SVB can be a powerful method to detect FL in various clinical indications, with discrepant cases mostly resulting from a refinement in the initial diagnosis.