Racial and Ethnic Bias in Medical School Clinical Grading: A Review

Medical student perceptions of assessments of clinical reasoning in a general surgery clerkship

BACKGROUND

Components factoring into general surgery clerkship grades vary by institution, and while evaluators attempt to remain unbiased when evaluating medical student performance, subjectivity and implicit bias remain an issue. Our institution recently implemented a case-based structured oral examination to provide the general surgery clerkship director objective insight into students' clinical reasoning skills. We hypothesized that medical students believe this exam, along with graded clinical documentation and the Observed Standardized Clinical Encounter (OSCE), are fair assessments and increase students' awareness of their clinical reasoning skills.

METHODS

A survey was sent to third-year medical students in the classes of 2023 and 2024 at our institution who had completed their general surgery clerkship. Students rated five grading assessments (i.e., preceptor evaluations, the oral examination, clinical documentation, the OSCE, and the shelf exam) on fairness and the ability of the assessment to give them insight into their clinical reasoning on a five-point Likert scale 1-5 (with 1 = Strongly Agree, 5 = Strongly Disagree).

RESULTS

One hundred and ten of 162 (67.9%) students responded to the survey. The shelf examination was the most highly regarded assessment tool followed by the oral examination. Seventy-three percent agreed or strongly agreed that the oral exam was a fair assessment, and 80% agreed or strongly agreed that it gave them insight into their clinical reasoning skills. Alternatively, only 41.8% of students agreed or strongly agreed that preceptor evaluations were fair assessments and 42.7% agreed or strongly agreed that it gave them insight into their clinical reasoning.

CONCLUSIONS

Third-year medical students on a general surgery clerkship favor the shelf examination and a case-based oral examination over other assessment tools regarding fairness and perception of their clinical reasoning. This type of examination can provide general surgery clerkship directors with additional objective data to assess medical students more fairly and improve students' clinical reasoning.

Preference Signaling Survey of Program Directors-After the Match

INTRODUCTION

The 2022 to 2023 orthopaedic residency cycle implemented a preference signaling program (PSP), allowing applicants to send "signals" to up to 30 programs to demonstrate their genuine interest. With the conclusion of the 2022 to 2023 cycle, the primary purpose of this study was to analyze program director (PD) perceptions of the PSP after the match cycle and provide a retrospective evaluation of the effects of the PSP on the orthopaedic resident selection process.

METHODS

A 21-question survey was distributed to 98 PDs (32.7% response rate). Contact information was obtained from a national database.

RESULTS

Most respondents (96.9%) participated in the American Orthopaedic Association's PSP. The majority (93.7%) view preference signaling as a positive change. Most PDs (56.2%) reported a decreased number in applications received compared with previous years. Receiving a preference signal was ranked among the most important factors in resident selection, and most PDs agreed that preference signaling should be used to screen applicants (84.4%) and differentiate similar applicants (96.8%). Moreover, 65.6% of PDs indicated that they would not rank or invite applicants to interview without a signal or completion of a formal away rotation. PDs report that in the 2022 to 2023 cycle, 98.5% of applicants who matched at their program had sent a preference signal.

DISCUSSION

Preference signaling was one of the most important factors assessed during its inaugural application cycle and is anticipated to remain a key tool for screening and differentiating candidates. Applicants should strategically select signal recipients to enhance their success in the match.

Educator's blueprint: Holistic applicant file review in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education

Medical schools and graduate medical education programs are tasked each year with selecting the next class of trainees, often from large applicant pools with enormous quantities of data to be processed. Review of applicant files must therefore be efficient, equitable, and effective in maximizing the likelihood of trainee success and alignment with institutional missions and values. In this article, we discuss 10 strategies to optimize the file review process for trainee selection. Using these strategies, educators can ensure rigorous and accountable file review processes for their training programs.