The interview in resident selection often is used to assess noncognitive factors; when combined with other data used in the application, it can predict future "success" for residency applicants. It is difficult to determine whether a specific interview format is superior for predicting performance; however, there is growing evidence that using structured interviews reduces bias, increases diversity, and recruits successful residents. In this workshop, presenters will educate participants on the current state of literature and practice regarding the use structured interviews and teach them strategies and techniques implemented by our residency leadership. The first step in standardizing the interview process is determining which core values predict resident success in a particular program. To that end, faculty within the presenters' department met last year prior to recruitment season and came to a consensus on the main qualities to seek in a resident. Faculty decided to assess five domains, communication/interpersonal style, teamwork, critical thinking, organizational skills, and self-awareness, in addition to application review. Questions were developed elicit information about those traits during the interview process as well as a scoring rubric. The scoring of each domain helps define what makes a high-performing versus low-performing answer. Once the standardized questions with scoring system were determined, interviewers reviewed the process. A shift to structured interviews by creating standardized questions may eliminate bias but further research to measure the extent of incorporating this method into residency interviews will be needed in the future.

Education regarding substance use disorders (SUD) remains insufficient in medical training. This gap continues to persist despite the increasing rates of substance use related comorbidities, societal costs, and death. ACGME recommendations and 2023 DEA requirements kickstarted a shift in the emphasis in the diagnosis and treatment of SUD. With this increased awareness, there is an acute need for a robust, comprehensive, and user-friendly SUD curriculum for both residents and faculty. In this workshop, presenters will review a conceptual approach to structuring an addiction medicine curriculum while leveraging the current program structure and discuss practical applications that leaders can bring back to their institutions. Presenters will review practical approaches to help programs identify needs and resources in their institutions and will share the framework used by at their program, including considerations of mapping academic content, speaker selection, longitudinal themes, active learning strategies and providing special events (Alcoholic Anonymous meetings) for learners. Presenters will share a list of resources and guiding principles to seamlessly incorporate into a program and describe the steps to design the curriculum. The goal is to provide a user-friendly framework for developing an engaging and low-effort curriculum that optimizes resident and faculty learning through already existing clinical and academic schedule. At the end of the session, participants will leave equipped with tools to draft and integrate their own SUD curriculum into their training program.

Most workshops seek to develop faculty skills on engaging in feedback conversations, but no matter how artfully a faculty member may engage in feedback, trainees must come to the process with a degree of feedback literacy for the process to be effective. Feedback literacy refers to the skills a trainee requires to make sense of information and use it to improve performance. The purpose of this workshop is to create a toolbox for cultivating those skills. Feedback literacy is best understood in four domains: appreciating feedback, managing affect, making evaluative judgments, and taking action. Appreciating feedback refers to both valuing feedback and being able to take an active role in the process. Managing affect is the capacity to modulate the impact of feedback on one's emotions. How students manage their emotional equilibrium impacts their engagement with critical assessments. Making evaluative judgements and taking action refers to the aptitude to make decisions about the quality of one's own work and implementing improvements. Programs can have culture and systems that promote feedback literacy in trainees- or impede it. This workshop will provide foundational understanding of this concept and practical strategies to cultivate the necessary skills.

Leading change in life can seem daunting. Despite best intentions, falling back into old habits which can lead to feelings of shame and consequently burnout. Awareness of underlying assumptions that prevent making a lasting change can lead to empowerment and improve wellness. This workshop will implement Bob Kegan and Lisa Lahey's Immunity to Change framework as a model to launch transformative change. Presenters will first use a personal challenge as an example before leading participants through a step by step approach to 1) identify and choose a current practice in their life they feel is important to change; 2) discover the specific behaviors that directly undermine the desired change; 3) explore the underlying assumptions that create a barrier to effectively address personal challenges; 4) design a structured approach to test those assumptions.The workshop will use individual reflection time as well as pairing and sharing with an accountability partner, followed by large group debriefs to discuss the importance of identifying a meaningful goal and how to quiet the "inner critic" by reframing underlying assumptions with compassion and a growth mindset. Presenters will share examples of how this same model has been used to lead workshops with residents and can be used to guide organizational change.

Culture in residency training is largely driven by the collective personalities, customs, beliefs and values of the people that make it up. Understanding personalities and how personalities interact, especially in context of relationships with colleagues as well as patient interactions, can be paramount to the success of a residency program. Interest in personality-based tools to help aid in culture development and team dynamics has been studied in the business world for years and has made its way into health care models. The enneagram is one such tool; readily recognized by many, it helps to identify the primary "type" of personality for an individual while also acknowledging that "wings" add to the complexity of an individual's self-identity and that each primary type has inherent limitations. This workshop will demonstrate how utilization of the enneagram can empower the residency leadership team (program directors, associate/assistant program directors, core faculty) in their dynamic roles as mentor, teacher, and colleague. Awareness of one's own personality type, motivations, and limitations as well as those of colleagues will foster reflection and introspection but also facilitate execution of routine challenges: the remediation of a struggling learner, navigating interpersonal conflict, or managing change. Ultimately, identifying "love language" through the enneagram may improve success in a leadership role and create a more meaningful experience that has ripple effects on the culture of the educational program.

You have just received an invitation from a high impact factor medical journal, asking for your expertise in peer reviewing a manuscript for them. Congratulations! But you've never done one before...what to do? Peer review is one of the most important ways that we can contribute to the advancement of medical science. It also meets an ACGME scholarly activity requirement and can teach us to be critical readers of the medical literature, lessons to model for faculty and learners. Utilizing best practices from the medical literature as well as the experiences in editorial roles for multiple medical journals, presenters will take participants stepwise through the peer review process, utilizing real world examples of journal submissions for small group discussion, editing, and review. This stepwise approach will utilize a simple tool for peer reviewers to structure their analysis and provide highly-rated reviews to journals. Workshop participants will leave feeling more confident in their abilities to accept a peer review request as well as having a template to utilize for faculty development purposes. The tool can also be used by programs to benefit trainee critical appraisal and enhance journal club.

Faculty at different training programs that vary in size share a common bond: a love-hate relationship with the electronic health record (EHR) in-basket. Collective experiences will serve as a foundation to help participants discuss common themes related to ambulatory clinic training experiences of both residents and faculty regarding in-basket management. This workshop is best for programs that utilize Epic; however, the concepts have applicability to all EHR systems. Presenters will focus on helping faculty evaluate and enhance their current system of resident clinic in-basket management, recognizing that the approach of EHR onboarding to resident clinic varies. Discussion will focus on in-basket, which can be a common source of frustration for residents and preceptors alike. Yet it is also an opportunity for innovation aimed at addressing specific Milestone 2.0 resident core competencies. Presenters will discuss systems for resident result management of their continuity clinic patients beyond the office visit and some curricular innovations to support residents. They include a "clinic coaching" model, tip sheets, education sessions, and peer evaluation of in-basket management. Shared Epic-generated data in a case-based format will demonstrate ways to identify struggling residents and elucidate solutions. In small groups, participants will use a checklist to take inventory of their system, troubleshoot common resident in-basket management issues, and learn from each other about their programs' current clinic coverage structures. Participants will share and learn strategies from the large group debrief sessions of in-basket management expectations, promoting resident growth in this area, and opportunities for collaboration.

The visual arts and other humanities enhance medical education, guiding trainees to develop humanistic skills that support the biomedical model. Recognizing these benefits, AAMC expects programs to incorporate the humanities into curricula across the medical learning continuum. UME more frequently meets this expectation, but the increasing burden of burnout and compassion fatigue during GME positions residents and fellows to benefit significantly from humanities education. In this workshop, presenters will review the importance of incorporating humanities into UME and GME, key principles for doing so successfully, and challenges frequently encountered in the process. Presenters will introduce the Prism Model for Integrating the Arts and Humanities into Medical Education as a guide for designing curricula that teach learners across the curriculum how to master clinical skills, understand varying perspectives, reflect on personal insights, and develop social advocacy. While most published educational initiatives utilize literature and narratives, the workshop will highlight the unique benefits of the visual arts as an instructional method. Participants will engage in a demonstration of the presenters' interprofessional approach to teaching with the visual arts. After a discussion of publicly accessible resources, participants will follow the Prism Model and brainstorm the design of sessions that include the visual arts. Presenters will conclude with a discussion of proposed initiatives, collaboratively sharing and refining ideas as well as reflecting on the experience of incorporating the visual arts into medical education.

Future physicians must understand that patients are the result of biopsychosocial factors that need to be explored to be effectively managed. For physicians caring for diverse patients, it is crucial to recognize not only the contexts in which a patient presents, but also their own biases and preconceptions about marginalized groups. While lectures and classroom learning are necessary to construct a foundation for recognizing the importance of social justice in medicine, these concepts must be reinforced by lived engagement. The clerkship years of medical school are an opportunity for students to put these concepts into practice. Presenters will discuss strategies to introduce social justice concepts beside the clinical curriculum. Participants will review the Structural Vulnerability Assessment Tool and discuss its use as a "springboard" when delving into a patient's personal narrative. This tool enables students to forge stronger connections with their patients and reckon with bias in the hospital, on their medical teams, and in themselves that engenders reflection and critique. Most importantly, it provides a framework that promotes "structural competency" to better equip future physicians with the knowledge of how structural vulnerabilities contribute to illness. One practical benefit of this approach is that students can apply what they learn by advocating for their patients and improving clinical care and discharge planning. Finally, presenters will introduce a scaffolded structure of individual and small group work that encourages students to develop their teambuilding skills and to learn by teaching one another.

The third year of medical school can be an exciting yet challenging transition for students from classroom-based education to learning on the medical wards. As students grapple with navigating a clinical environment, they are expected to accomplish the daunting task of learning the content relevant to their shelf exams. Didactic education in the hospital forms an integral part this adaptation to learning in the clinical setting; however, this instruction can be disjointed, and incongruous among various clinical sites. In this workshop, presenters will demonstrate examination of the existent curriculum of conferences for third-year medical students and identification of eight core topics integral to the internal medicine shelf exam. These topics were not yet explicitly covered in the existing curriculum of student-specific conferences. Using strategies and theories for multi-media learning, the presenters developed a series of whiteboard mini-lectures for third-year medical students on their clerkship. The lectures are based on educational content published by the Curbsiders, COREIM, Clinical Problem Solvers, and Run the List podcasts. Several mini-lectures were later re-purposed as educational "tweetorials" that were disseminated to learners to reinforce educational concepts. Participants will brainstorm ways to develop a series of didactics for learners at their own institutions. They will write learning objectives for a whiteboard mini-lecture and, before leaving, tweet one concept that they plan to teach at a future session.

The use of simulation-based medical education (SBME) in UME has increased substantially over the last several years due to the increase in available technology as well as broader recognition of its power and validity as a learning tool for students. When surveyed, 97% of US medical schools reported having a physical simulation center. While a majority of internal medicine clerkships report using simulation, it can take a wide variety of forms, from breaking bad news to procedural curricula to cardiac arrest algorithms. In this workshop, presenters will start with an overview of the current SBME data and share the implementation of SBME as a clinical reasoning exercise in an inpatient medicine clerkship. In small groups, participants will discuss ways to implement SBME into existing clerkship curricula. Each group will receive one learning objective and brainstorm together ways that the learning objective could be achieved in the simulation lab. There will also be opportunities to discuss how to overcome potential challenges, particularly at institutions that may not have a robust simulation lab or are operating with a limited budget or resources. Each group will present their ideas with opportunities for feedback and areas for improvement. The presenters will share a model for debriefing and emphasize the opportunities for learning that come with debriefing after simulation.

This presentation will review changes seen for objectives of learning in the clerkship. Are students trying to learn the skills to become a better physician? OR Are students focusing on areas that will earn them the best grade? This presentation will look at the way recent updates (Step 1, the SEL, and other external forces) have affected student behavior, medical education, residency applications, and expectations of the clerkship.

The pandemic changed the way we work. Between hybrid, remote, and onsite work, many teams are feeling disconnected with each other and many processes have been disrupted. Now that the way we work has changed, we need to adjust. This workshop will review how the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep & Occupational Medicine at Indiana University and Indiana University Health Physicians brought together the clinical and academic administrative team to adjust processes, create new processes, provide development opportunities for staff members, and network to create a stronger cross-functional group.

Annual faculty evaluations are an important part of the academic process. They provide feedback to faculty on their teaching, research, and service, and they can be used to make decisions about tenure, promotion, and merit raises. Regular feedback and bidirectional communication among faculty and their chief is essential to faculty development, but too often the regular feedback faculty receive are focused on only one area of their contributions and does not paint a complete picture of faculty contributions. Further, one performance evaluation annually is not enough to promote regular advancement conversations among faculty and their chiefs, particularly in a large and complex division. In a biannual faculty engagement survey, the division received feedback from faculty regarding process changes that would benefit them during the promotion process. With these concerns in mind, Northwestern University Division of Cardiology redesigned its annual faculty evaluation with the following goals: (1) encourage conversation around faculty promotion and to focus the evaluation more on career development; (2) recognize all faculty contributions to the academic and clinical community at large and highlight qualitative contributions; (3) encourage conversation year-round among faculty, their section chiefs, and their division chiefs; and (4) better align with the university's timeline and faculty tracking systems. This workshop will demonstrate the new evaluation process and criteria and discuss how the expanded faculty evaluation process was integrated into administrative workflow.

Disappointment happens frequently in life; the COVID pandemic dramatically changed the field of medicine. Schedules switched rapidly, vacations were cancelled, communication changed daily. Interviews became virtual, bedside learning was no longer considered safe, patients medical needs were greater than ever before, and often coverage needs were shifted for last minute for call outs. This level of uncertainty often led to increased frustration and disengagement; team levels of disappointment was on the rise further compounded by an already burnt-out workforce. As such, it is imperative to learn skills to address disappointment signs and symptoms early, specifically how to support trainees and faculty when it occurs and support impacted team members. This support includes the increased use of peer mentoring, coaching and workshops around how to actively navigate emotional state around disappointment. Through topic-focused small group discussions and with a provided discussion guide, participants will work through possible interventions and identify ways to address barriers to implementation at their home institution. Presenters will discuss aligning interventions with institutional goals and how to maintain momentum even when supporting other can seem overwhelming. Participants will leave this workshop with their own checklist on how to navigate disappointment in medical education.

A meaningful letter of recommendation is not only an opportunity for sponsorship but also one of the most important tasks for medical educators. Residency program leadership and recruitment teams also recognize how critical a role words from colleagues can be in painting a picture of applicants. However, with administrative and clinical demands, finding the time and cognitive bandwidth to write unique and descriptive words on behalf of learners can be daunting. The temptation to recycle language, and even letters, is one that is all too common. With the emergence of more pass-fail assessments and other changes to the landscape of recruitment, the weight of letters and the urgency for them to adequately describe individuals is now more important and significant than ever. In this workshop, presenters describe the #BetterLetter approach to preparing and writing letters of recommendation. This interactive workshop allows participants to work through a four-step process involving developing a description of the role in medical education and interaction with learner; engaging the learner in an inventory of their strengths and building examples from personal experience with them +/- peer descriptions solicited by the learner.; how the individual compares to others and/or insight on challenges; and a clear statement of recommendation. The workshop emphasizes reflection and action-oriented application to empower participants (and their colleagues) to write more meaningful letters.

Writing notes consumes hours of resident time each day, yet notes often contain extraneous information, do not clearly communicate the patient's condition, and do not fulfill billing requirements. This workshop will expose participants to a note writing curriculum that not only uses templates and problem lists but also trains peer educators to give feedback that results in higher quality notes. Presenters will engage participating clinical educators by reviewing an approach that expands upon a basic writer's workshop style of critiquing sample notes with learners and show how peer education can create sustained improvement in notes without extensive faculty time and effort. This process can be modified to adapt to different residency structures and changing billing requirements; the workshop will include time for participants to brainstorm how it could fit into their learning environments. Participants will leave with tools they can immediately utilize in home institutions that will reduce time spent and improve the quality of learner notes while enhancing communication across teams caring for patients.

Small group educational structures are growing in popularity in medical education. For example, numerous medical schools across the country have adopted models of longitudinal education rooted in small group instruction and multiple domains of clinical medical education occur in small group settings (rounds, clinics, etc.) These small group environments represent important opportunities with unique challenges for facilitators to provide feedback to learners and participants in the small group setting. This workshop is designed to train participants in the art of providing feedback to learners in the small group setting in front of their peers. Presenters will review key pieces of feedback literature with an emphasis on assessing when it is most appropriate to give feedback to a learner in front of their peers, how to elicit the thoughts/feelings of the learner, and how to construct and craft the feedback.

The session will provide a blueprint of a workshop originally adapted from an ACGME workshop in 2019. Presenters will begin by sharing a resident scenario and asking how to provide the resident with feedback with varying receptibility. Presenters will discuss why feedback is important and what are the gaps. The layout of monthly simulation workshops, including the feedback framework of Prepare to Ask-Discuss-Ask-Plan-Together (Prepare to ADAPT) that was created by University of Washington and three resident simulation scenarios will be discussed as well as the logistics of scheduling faculty developments. Presenters will conclude with results of implementation institution-wide with statistically significant findings of faculty finding the simulation scenarios helpful, and significant improvements in faculty following a format and having a set plan prior to feedback delivery. Presenters also found trends of reduced faculty anxiety surrounding giving feedback.

Medical educators likely use humor as one of the tools in a communication toolkit, be it for education, mentoring, providing feedback or simply having a conversation. Well implemented humor can enhance attention and engagement, lighten the atmosphere, and support a sense of belonging and connection, boosting the learning environment. On the other hand, some attempts at humor can have the opposite effect: undermine authority, be perceived as offensive, and jeopardize learner sense of psychological safety. In this workshop, presenters will share a scientific approach to implementing humor as part of medical education. Specifically, they will review the four types of humor, the theories explaining why something is perceived as funny, and the literature supporting the use of humor to enhance attention and retention, decrease anxiety, facilitate acceptance of new ideas and overall elevate everyone's sense of joy and wellbeing. Presenters will review the pitfalls of using humor, including potential effects on perceived status, being interpreted as offensive, and the fear of not being funny. The workshop will offer a structured approach to addressing unintended consequences of offensive humor. The presenters seek to create awareness and intentionality in the use of humor in medical education, while avoiding pitfalls and navigating challenges with grace and kindness.