Patient-centered care has been described as one approach to cultural competency education that could reduce racial and ethnic health disparities by preparing providers to deliver care that is respectful and responsive to the preferences of each patient. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of a curriculum in teaching patient-centered care (PCC) behaviors to medical students, we drew on the work of Kleinman, Eisenberg, and Good to develop a scale that could be embedded across cases in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). To compare the reliability, validity, and feasibility of an embedded patient-centered care scale with the use of a single culturally challenging case in measuring students′ use of PCC behaviors as part of a comprehensive OSCE. A total of 322 students from two California medical schools participated in the OSCE as beginning seniors. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of each approach. Construct validity was addressed by establishing convergent and divergent validity using the cultural challenge case total score and OSCE component scores. Feasibility assessment considered cost and training needs for the standardized patients (SPs). Medical students demonstrated a moderate level of patient-centered skill (mean = 63%, SD = 11%). The PCC Scale demonstrated an acceptable level of internal consistency (alpha = 0.68) over the single case scale (alpha = 0.60). Both convergent and divergent validities were established through low to moderate correlation coefficients. The insertion of PCC items across multiple cases in a comprehensive OSCE can provide a reliable estimate of students′ use of PCC behaviors without incurring extra costs associated with implementing a special cross-cultural OSCE. This approach is particularly feasible when an OSCE is already part of the standard assessment of clinical skills. Reliability may be increased with an additional investment in SP training.

Health education has seen a surge of interest in active learning strategies like the flipped classroom. In response to the need for physical distancing in the age of COVID-19, schools are rapidly shifting to web-based and video technology, sometimes without being able to predict the outcomes of this change. The objectives of this pilot experiment were to (1) compare active learning (AL) methods versus traditional lecture for transmitting and retaining knowledge in the introductory pre-clinical medical school curriculum and (2) weigh whether the costs required to flip instruction were justified by learning gains. The authors took a 2 h lecture for first-year medical students and converted half of it into an AL format. In-person lecture and active learning groups were compared in terms of student knowledge at pre-intervention, immediately post-intervention, and 6 months post-intervention. Costs for first-time delivery and anticipated costs for repeat delivery of each format were calculated. Students' gains in knowledge increased in both groups, though more by lecture (control) than via AL. Delivering a single hour of new AL costs 3.4 times that of a new lecture. Repeat offerings of the AL intervention were estimated to cost 5.4 times that of the repeat lecture. The 1 h AL session was less effective than the 1 h lecture for knowledge acquisition and retention at 6-month follow-up. The AL was more expensive to produce and to repeat. Future research needs to evaluate the impact of AL with a larger N, control group, structured faculty/resident procedures, and assessment of gaining and applying attitudes and skills in addition to knowledge.

Despite the prevalence of medical interpreting in the clinical environment, few medical professionals receive training in best practices when using an interpreter. We designed and implemented an educational workshop on using interpreters as part of the cultural competency curriculum for second year medical students (MSIIs) at David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. The purpose of this study is two-fold: first, to evaluate the effectiveness of the workshop and second, if deficiencies are found, to investigate whether the deficiencies affected the quality of the patient encounter when using an interpreter. A total of 152 MSIIs completed the 3-hour workshop and a 1-station objective-structured clinical examination, 8 weeks later to assess skills. Descriptive statistics and independent sample t-tests were used to assess workshop effectiveness. Based on a passing score of 70%, 39.4% of the class failed. Two skills seemed particularly problematic: assuring confidentiality (missed by 50%) and positioning the interpreter (missed by 70%). While addressing confidentiality did not have a significant impact on standardized patient satisfaction, interpreter position did. Instructing the interpreter to sit behind the patient helps sustain eye contact between clinician and patient, while assuring confidentiality is a tenet of quality clinical encounters. Teaching students and faculty to emphasize both is warranted to improve cross-language clinical encounters.

Background

The flipped classroom model for didactic education has recently gained popularity in medical education; however, there is a paucity of performance data showing its effectiveness for knowledge gain in graduate medical education.

Objective

We assessed whether a flipped classroom module improves knowledge gain compared with a standard lecture.

Methods

We conducted a randomized crossover study in 3 emergency medicine residency programs. Participants were randomized to receive a 50-minute lecture from an expert educator on one subject and a flipped classroom module on the other. The flipped classroom included a 20-minute at-home video and 30 minutes of in-class case discussion. The 2 subjects addressed were headache and acute low back pain. A pretest, immediate posttest, and 90-day retention test were given for each subject.

Results

Of 82 eligible residents, 73 completed both modules. For the low back pain module, mean test scores were not significantly different between the lecture and flipped classroom formats. For the headache module, there were significant differences in performance for a given test date between the flipped classroom and the lecture format. However, differences between groups were less than 1 of 10 examination items, making it difficult to assign educational importance to the differences.

Conclusions

In this crossover study comparing a single flipped classroom module with a standard lecture, we found mixed statistical results for performance measured by multiple-choice questions. As the differences were small, the flipped classroom and lecture were essentially equivalent.