The Kern Institute Learns to Blow our Shofar!

From the January 13, 2023 issue of the Transformational Times

The Kern Institute Learns to Blow our Shofar!  

By Adina Kalet, MD, MPH

In this week’s Director’s Corner, Dr. Kalet describes what she learned about transformational leadership while drinking coffee on a beach overlooking the Mediterranean Sea …

 

The beginning is the most important part of the work.

-Plato

In December 2018, I traveled to Israel to meet with palliative care physician and medical educator Dr. Dafna Meitar and educational psychologist and philosopher Dr. Daniel Marom. We talked about the Mandel Leadership Institute’s Leadership in Medical Education Program, a sophisticated, unique, year-long, philosophically-framed, intensive training they were creating in Jerusalem. We spent a whole day in a café in the coastal city of Herzliya, looking out over the Mediterranean, drinking coffee, eating pita, hummus, and diced salad, and discussing medical education. Ideas flew back and forth. We shared serious ideas, stories, and jokes. We gesticulated wildly. I got a tan and furiously took notes in multiple colors. 

When there was a lull in the conversation, I asked their advice about the job opportunity I was contemplating in Milwaukee. Daniel asked solemnly, “When you take this job, what will you mean by ‘transforming medical education’?” 

I talked unintelligently for a few minutes, reciting the laundry list of things I intended to do, but the look on their faces made it clear I hadn’t answered his question. “You must develop your shofar!” he said, cutting me off. “You must articulate the why of your work before  you will be ready to decide on the what.” He assumed that I would—although I had not yet decided to—take the job. 

Soon after that conversation, I accepted the offer. 

A shofar is an ancient musical instrument made from a ram’s horn. It was used like a modern bugle to call the community together for important announcements and discussion, to proclaim important calendar events, and to note solemn occasions. In modern times, the shofar is used during the Jewish High Holidays. In my community, the shofar can be—and is—blown by any member of the community with the proper embouchure. It is considered an honor and a source of pride to be able to “blow shofar.” 

I find the sound of the shofar stirring and meaningful. It accompanies those moments during the religious services when, in community, we are contemplating past errors, seeking forgiveness, and feeling humble. In awe, we formulate our resolutions for the future. I knew that by linking my career change to the shofar, Daniel was challenging me to think deeply and then “blast a horn” to get the attention of like-minded others so we could articulate a manifesto that would transform medical education. I had no clue what that would require, but I was reassured that Daniel and Dafna would be there to accompany me.

Once I joined the Kern Institute in fall 2019, I saw that our members were very busy. They had rolled up their sleeves and were solving problems. The KI had launched a robust faculty development program (KINETIC3), a well-being curriculum for students (REACH), and the Transformational Initiatives (TI2) program. However, I sensed that our members, our community within MCW, and the community beyond our walls did not clearly understand why we were doing what we were doing. I searched for ways to dedicate time to rest from all the doing and engage in some deep thinking. 

COVID-19 changed everything, and we wrote (and we wrote...)

As they say, be careful what you wish for! In March 2020, with the pandemic on our heels,  we launched the Transformational Times and have published weekly ever since. Once a collection of quality essays built over the first year-and-a-half, we published them in Character and Caring: A Pandemic Year in Medical Education at the end of 2021. 

Now, as we have continued our work and our writing, we present our new book, Character and Caring: Medical Education Emerge From the Pandemic, which was released on  January 2nd, 2023!  See Dr. Fletcher’s essay in this issue detailing the history of our work. 

Please consider purchasing the two volume Character and Caring  set (at a special price) for your favorite health professional. This is our shofar! It is a good read. Every member of the Kern Institute is expected to write regularly. The Transformational Times and the books call us all together for the deep conversations. In addition, we are publishing contributions from an enlarging group of local and national stakeholders and fellow travelers. 

Many have heard the “blast.” We receive emails from our readers and have regular literal and virtual hallway conversations stimulated by the essays. The responses are mostly expressions of appreciation for the opportunity to hear our why; the newsletter and books allow people to know us and know our work. Readers regularly share their own stories. There has been an occasional friendly debate and rarely a pointed disagreement. We welcome it all.  

Beyond the transactional to the transformational

We have a much more to learn from Drs. Marom and Meitar. Their deep and abiding respect for educators is intoxicating. They believe that educational leaders, through their work, define and design their professional community and, therefore, are responsible for giving expression to the values that comprise what medical sociologist, Eliot Freidson, PhD, called the "soul of their profession." Their approach to leadership development is guided by a clearly articulated framework they call a “typology” made up of five interrelated levels. The typology frames everything they do to facilitate—and provides a language for ensuring—that leaders understand why we are doing what we are doing. This, in turn, greatly enhances the likelihood that these motivated and committed individuals will have an impact that goes well beyond the transactional toward the transformational. 

All the work in the Leadership in Medical Education Program is done in peer groups and supported by coaching. Through discourse, readings, and reflective writing, senior medical educators wrestle first with core philosophical ideas surrounding human health and sickness (Level 1 of the typology) followed by questions surrounding the larger aims of the education of physicians (Level two). Then, and only then, are they allowed to dive into the implications of all this for educational theory (Level 3), implementation of new educational practice (Level 4) and, finally, evaluation of outcomes of that practice to measure success (Level 5). 

For most physicians who are very action-oriented, it takes discipline not to jump into the “doing” (Level 3) too soon. But, with practice and experience, most of Meitar and Marom’s participants internalize the discipline needed to seriously engage with the philosophical questions underpinning medical education before jumping into or designing and/or implementing programs. 

 Over the past few years, as I have worked with the five medical schools in Israel (more on that another time). I have had the honor of meeting many of the nearly fifty medical educators who have completed the Mandel Institute’s Leadership in Medical Education Program. After experiencing a very old-fashioned medical education themselves, most of them light up when discussing the pleasure in having the opportunity to engage with their peers intellectually and personally through this program. They are inspired to lead the change that is needed, even though it will be difficult, even though it will be resisted, and even though resources are very limited. Many of these graduates are now moving into positions of influence in their medical schools. 

Marom and Meitar are having an impact on the future of the whole country. I continue to take notes in multiple colors and have tried to bring these renderings into our work in the Kern Institute.  

Checking in again

After a couple of years in lockdown, I recently returned to a beach café in Israel to meet with Dafna and Daniel, both of whom are now affiliate faculty of the Kern Institute. They read our Transformational Times. They are still working to lift up medical education in their country as we are in ours. We discussed how the Kern Institute’s shofar is going and shared our successes and challenges. It is my hope to bring them to Milwaukee very soon (in the warm season) to teach us a thing or two about medical education leadership. I will take them—and as many of you as can join us—to the South Shore Terrace Kitchen & Beer Garden for a campfire, some s’mores, and a view of Lake Michigan. 

Looking out over the water, we will pick up our conversations from where we left off. 

Adina Kalet, MD MPH is the Director of the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Institute for the Transformation of Medical Education and holder of the Stephen and Shelagh Roell Endowed Chair at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

Diagnostic Reasoning – A Call for Faculty Engagement

From the August 12, 2022 issue of the Transformational Times newsletter

Diagnostic Reasoning – A Call for Faculty Engagement 

  

By Jayshil J. Patel, MD - Director of MCW's curriculum "Critical Thinking in Medicine" thread

  

Dr. Patel shares, in earnest, this call to interested clinical faculty to engage in the diagnostic reasoning curriculum.  In many ways, our patients and posterity depend on it ... 

 

As many of you know, threads will be woven into the new medical school curriculum.  The Critical Thinking in Medicine thread will be a synergistic marriage between diagnostic reasoning and evidence-based medicine which, I think, are the key constituents for deliberately practicing medicine in today’s clinical environments and setting learners on paths towards diagnostic expertise.  Over the past few years, components of the curriculum have been tried and tested in various venues throughout undergraduate and graduate medical education and many learners have embraced and incorporated the language of the diagnostic process into their medical lexicon. Some have left training equipped with skills to metacognate.   

I am thrilled the curriculum will become a staple of undergraduate medical education at the Medical College of Wisconsin, but the initial implementation and sustainability of any curriculum, let alone ours, relies on an acceptance and participation from learners and faculty.  Thus, faculty development will be crucial.    

If, at this point, you’re asking, “Well, how are you going to do that?” Don’t fret. I share your line of questioning.  My honest answer is that I don’t know.   Or rather, I haven’t figured it out yet.   

But before embarking on a journey to capacitate and train the trainers, I would like to share why I think clinical faculty members would benefit from engagement, including becoming fluent in the semantics, scientific underpinnings, and metacognitive strategies related to the diagnostic process.  Here, I outline the impact (and really benefit) for three key stakeholders. 

For the sake of patients: Reducing medical errors by teaching how to arrive at a correct diagnosis 

Clearly, the goal for many front-line specialties is to get an accurate and timely diagnosis.  Without it, management is ineffective, wasteful, and potentially harmful.  With an accurate diagnosis, management and prognosis are guided.   

A diagnostic error is defined as a “failure to develop an accurate explanation for a patient’s health problem and/or failure to communicate that explanation,” and studies of autopsies, secondary reviews, and voluntary reports suggest diagnostic errors occur in up to 15% of cases, culminating in adverse events in up to 90% of cases.  It turns out cognitive errors are by far the most common cause of diagnostic error. An analysis of 583 physician-reported diagnostic errors suggested a failure/delay in considering diagnosis, suboptimal weighing of information, or too much emphasis placed on competing diagnoses were the most common reasons for “what went wrong.”  

As a result, patients may be subject to unnecessary testing and incorrect therapies, which may subsequently lead to psychologic/physical harm, toxicity, prolonged hospitalization, financial distress, and even death. Therefore, if the primary goal during an initial undifferentiated patient encounter is to arrive at a diagnosis, shouldn’t medical education, for the sake of patient care, strive to teach learners how to arrive at a diagnosis by explicating the diagnostic process into discrete teachable components to be deliberately practiced? And in doing so, is it possible to reduce diagnostic errors?   

While I can’t cite literature, and even if the answer is “no,” I opine, from a philosophical standpoint, that there’s intrinsic value, for doctoring and the doctor-patient relationship, in better understanding the diagnostic process.  

For the sake of learners: Giving them tools to build their diagnostic expertise 

It is not uncommon for novice learners to be “full of facts.”  However, they may have a difficult time “putting it all together.”  In fact, the diagnostic process is often considered a “black box” where learners can see what goes in (the data) and what comes out (the eventual diagnosis) but may not be able to articulate (in written or verbal communication) the intermediate steps.  And in some cases, the diagnoses are often drawn from a grab bag of differential diagnoses, which are verbalized using reflexive and biologically unlinked thinking.   

Instead of just creating competent graduates, what if we aim to set learners on a path towards diagnostic expertise?  After all, and as stated earlier, nothing good happens without an accurate diagnosis.  And so, what if the learner could: 

(a) Recognize how to appropriately utilize and toggle between different systems of thinking 

(b) Recognize when their cognitive load is high 

(c) Utilize different approaches to problems (e.g., hypothetical-deductive versus inductive approach) 

(d) Acquire a template for knowledge storage, expansion, and retrieval 

(e) Learn to conduct a cognitive autopsy and scan their environment for cognitive pitfalls 

(f) Learn to calibrate their thinking for future similar but not identical cases 

It is not a stretch of the imagination, and in fact, when we launched this curriculum in the internal medicine residency program, these components were exactly what learners desired out of their training.  For learners to grasp and deliberately practice these components, they’ll need their faculty counterparts to share their understanding of the diagnostic process (or at minimum, speak the same language). 

For the sake of faculty: Creating a culture where they can share their skills 

A few years ago, before delineating the components of a diagnostic reasoning curriculum, I began with the end in mind.  Assuming resources abound, I envisioned a Center for Diagnostic Reasoning (and Evidence-Based Medicine). It would be a place where educators would encourage learners to think aloud, deliberately dissect clinical cases into aliquots, and expound systematic approaches. They would approach problems embedded in a patient context and within a consciousness of the scientific underpinnings of decision-making and evidence-based medicine, all the while reflecting and calibrating their thinking.  The Center would be magnetic, attracting educators into the logos of diagnostic reasoning, creating sustainability.   

To me, that is aspirational and exciting.  Here’s why.  Sure, for young learners, the acquired skillsets are meant to promote lifelong learning and equip them to stay on the path towards diagnostic expertise.  But for clinical faculty, the acquired skillsets provide an opportunity to illuminate their thinking and provide a window (for learners) into their mind, within a culture of democratized rounds where both learners and faculty are encouraged to say, “I don’t know,” without the worry of perceived failure.   

Faculty might be overwhelmed and say, “I just don’t have time to do this.”  I will submit to you that you (faculty) are already, some in an extemporaneous manner, reasoning; however, the addition of semantic and scientific structure may provide greater clarity for learners (and yourself).   

Importantly, such a culture would enable the expression of virtues such as courage, prudence, empathy, grace, and humility.  For example, it takes courage and humility to say, “I don’t know.”  The manifestation of these virtues is central for the success of the hidden curriculum, which has far-reaching implications, perhaps more than the exposed curriculum.  And an explicated awareness of an individual’s thinking may be the key in accruing tacit knowledge.   

After all, it was Aristotle who said, Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom. 

Jayshil J. Patel, MD, is an Associate Professor of Medicine in the Department of Medicine at MCW.  He is on the Learning Environment Pillar of the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Institute for the Transformation of Medical Education and the Critical Thinking in Medicine Thread Director at MCW.