Beyond Competency: Setting a Path to [Diagnostic] Expertise

 From the. 1/22/2021 newsletter

Perspective/Opinion

 

 

Beyond Competency: Setting a Path to [Diagnostic] Expertise

 

 

By Jayshil Patel, MD and Paul Bergl, MD

 

 

Drs. Patel and Bergl, who have a keen interest in “how doctors think,” discuss their curriculum to improve clinical reasoning skills …

 

Think about the last time you or someone you know went to a doctor with a symptom.  What did you or they seek?  Did you want an explanation for the symptom?  Did you want an efficient, yet thoughtful evaluation in arriving at a diagnosis?

 

Accurate and timely diagnosis is the foundation of medicine.  With it, management strategies have the best potential to positively modify disease and outcome.  Without accurate diagnoses, however, management is unguided and both potentially wasteful and ineffective. Thus, we advocate for undergraduate and graduate medical education to invest in setting learners on a path towards diagnostic expertise. 

 

Expertise does not stem from a superior natural capacity to analyze new information.  Rather, expertise is an adaptation, rooted in the ability to efficiently recognize patterns and compare it to what has been accrued in an individual’s extensive knowledge domain in their long-term memory.  Expertise requires deliberate practice, a concept coined by psychologist Anders Ericsson to describe the modus operandi of expert development.  Deliberate practice requires systematic and forced attention for refining performance.  Experts set a stretch goal, deconstruct its components, and hone narrow aspects of their performance until achieving mastery. 

 

 

Deconstructing the “diagnostic process”

 

Fortunately, the diagnostic process can be deconstructed, and its steps deliberately practiced, thereby allowing the practitioner to remain on a pathway to diagnostic expertise. Unlike chess, music, or individual sports, however, measuring expertise in medicine is challenging.  Yet if we assume that consistency, efficiency, tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, and adaptability are key features to any form of expertise, then enhancing diagnostic performance would be aided by a rich understanding of the diagnostic process and mastery of its components.  With systematic and forced attention towards elements of the diagnostic process, knowledge (within the limits of working memory) becomes amenable to processing and reorganization into more meaningful units called “chunks.”  

 

When new information arises, the working memory rearranges its components into a coherent cognitive representation by connecting and cross-referencing this emerging knowledge with established “chunks” of information already stored in long-term memory, ready for rapid retrieval into working memory.  Not only do expert diagnosticians possess extensive knowledge, but through deliberate practice, they store this knowledge in well-organized schemata in the rapidly accessible long-term memory.   

 

Consider the alternatives and consequences to deliberate practice.  Learners (or practicing clinicians) may “practice” medicine by logging thousands of hours seeing patients; however, without explicit knowledge of the diagnostic process or well-defined goals for the steps of that process, they are at risk of repeating habitual tasks and on the pathway towards arrested development.  Without coaching or reflection, unguided learners (or practitioners) may not recognize failures, and they may default to an intuitive mode of thinking, which when overutilized, is a key driver of diagnostic error. 

 

 

The mechanics of a diagnostic reasoning curriculum

 

Diagnostic reasoning curriculum ought to change learners’ attitudes of their growth potential, build knowledge around the language and science of reasoning, and enhance specific skills through deliberate practice and reflection.  Implementing deliberate practice across the training spectrum requires a fundamental shift in how we teach diagnostic reasoning in today’s complex clinical learning environment.  Learners may perceive diagnostic reasoning as an intimidating black box and expertise as unattainable.  For attitudinal change, we suggest explicitly defining and calling out the stretch goal, namely, to create expert diagnosticians.  

 

Changing language to include phrases like “expert development” and illuminating a deconstructed pathway to expertise may foster a growth mindset, one in which learners peer into the black box of diagnostic expertise and gain intimate access to its many inputs and outputs.  We suggest a vision for medicine training be to gain the foundational diagnostic knowledge and skills to independently care for patients while deliberately practicing them toward expertise.

 

To build knowledge, the stretch goal should be deconstructed into discreet, teachable components.  In our curriculum, we have deconstructed diagnostic reasoning into: 

 

[a] the semantics of the diagnostic process

[b] the science of thinking, learning, and decision-making

[c] mechanisms for reflecting and strategies which may enhance diagnostic accuracy

 

Before applying their knowledge, experts in non-medical fields like chess, tennis, and art learn and master a common language.  Likewise, before applying medical knowledge, students master the language where words like dorsum, ipsilateral, and morbilliform codify concepts we all understand.  Similarly, the steps and scientific concepts of diagnostic reasoning include well-defined terms like problem representation, illness script, diagnostic schema, dual process theory, and cognitive load.  We suggest educators and learners first master the language of clinical reasoning.  Without this language, we create competency scales that deem trainees ready for unsupervised practice if they merely “synthesize data to generate a prioritized differential diagnosis and problem list.”  Oblique references to diagnostic reasoning are confusing.  Furthermore, without a shared dialect, we cannot apply diagnostic reasoning knowledge nor expect learners to reflect or teachers to coach.

 

Next, teaching the science of thinking is crucial to optimize reflection, feedback, and clinical decision making.  In our curriculum, we differentiate normative from descriptive modes of decision-making by illustrating Bayesian principles and outlining System 1 and 2 thinking, respectively, using medical and non-medical examples.  Describing concepts like cognitive load and cognitive bias may enable trainees to recognize methods to optimize learning and limitations of human thinking, respectively.  Furthermore, the advantages and disadvantages to various types of reasoning can increase self-awareness and consciousness of the mode employed, empowering trainees to better calibrate their own thinking over time.  Faculty development in the science of thinking and learning may promote their ability to, for example, recognize a scenario where learners (or their teachers) may be experiencing high cognitive load, to then take the steps to minimize it by enhancing the clinical learning environment.

 

Explicitly granulating components of the diagnostic process provides targets for feedback and self-reflection.  For example, accessing and selecting illness scripts are steps in making a diagnosis.  Illness script components include epidemiology, pathophysiology, symptoms and signs, diagnostics, and response to treatment.  Our (unpublished) research shows almost all novice learners recall signs and symptoms of disease but often lack working epidemiological knowledge or pathophysiologic insults.

 

 

A clinical example

 

Consider a situation where a novice learner working in an intensive care unit identifies a patient with new thrombocytopenia.  The learner mentions the patient was receiving heparin and orders tests to evaluate for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia without mentioning its epidemiology or considering alternative etiologies.  Two days later, the patient was found to have disseminated intravascular coagulation.  During a feedback session, one form of feedback might be: “Read more about thrombocytopenia.” 

 

But, if the community of learners and educators speak a common language around diagnostic reasoning and understanding the science of thinking and learning, feedback may be transformed from a nebulous, “Read more about thrombocytopenia,” to  “I’d like you to work on the epidemiologic component of your illness script for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and develop a pathophysiology-based diagnostic schema for thrombocytopenia.”  

 

 

Feedback tethered by the language and science of the diagnostic process has numerous benefits.  By delineating components of the diagnostic process, educators and learners can better assess diagnostic performance through targeted feedback, and in turn, deliberately practice towards, in this example, enriching an illness script.  From the perspective of an educator, awareness of what constitutes an illness script led to recognition of an incomplete script (lacking epidemiologic knowledge for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia).  By having knowledge of “how we think,” educators and learners can have a conversation to metacognate and identify cognitive bias leading to potential diagnostic error.  

 

In our example, the learner did not consider alternative etiologies for thrombocytopenia and anchored onto a diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.  As a result, educators construct remediation plans.  The learner was advised to develop a schema for thrombocytopenia (i.e., form a systematic approach to a clinical problem).  Consequently, longitudinal follow-up is established.  

 

On subsequent interactions, the educator can assess if the learner, indeed, developed a schema for thrombocytopenia. From the perspective a learner, such targeted feedback is constructive and actionable and serves as both a tool and a metric, in this case, to enrich the heparin-induced thrombocytopenia illness script and deliberately practice thrombocytopenia schema formation.  Importantly, the learner has a framework to self-reflect on how, why, and which cognitive bias(es) was invoked. 

 

 

Opportunities for incorporating clinical reasoning education into the clinical learning environment

 

To enhance reflection, skills, and reinforce effective habits for expertise, we suggest creatively infusing opportunities to deliberately practice components of the diagnostic process into our fast-paced, complex clinical environments that are fraught with actual or perceived barriers, like hand off medicine.  We advocate for dedicated undergraduate and graduate medical education didactic sessions that teach the language and science of diagnostic reasoning.  Morning report, morbidity and mortality conference, and clinical-pathologic correlation conferences could serve as ideal venues to deliberately practice diagnostic reasoning concepts and reap the benefits of crowdsourcing.  

 

As we have observed in our curriculum, infusing the language of clinical reasoning in one venue will invariably lead to utilization in other venues.  On the wards, when housestaff hand-off their patients, the face-to-face handoff period is an opportunity for a second opinion for the person giving the hand-off.  For the individual receiving it, it serves as an opportunity to practice diagnostic reasoning components, including refining problem representation as new data trickles in before rounds.  During rounds, we propose asking learners for why and how a diagnosis was ascertained, as opposed to just what. 

 

Democratizing rounds and asking all learners, not just the one presenting, promotes group discussion and creates a clinical learning environment where all learners can be empowered to think aloud.  For educators, asking learners to reason aloud promotes active reflection and generates opportunities for coaching and critical appraisal of their diagnostic reasoning.  Ideally, coaching would be longitudinal and intensive but, as demonstrated above, focused feedback need not be laborious.  Embedding problem representations followed by a reasoned diagnostic conclusion into electronic notes promotes script selection and real-time visualization of missing components, schema formation, and a tool for reflection since the diagnostic process is often evolutionary.  

 

 

The end game

 

The objectives for medical trainees are to “practice” good medicine and become lifelong learners, sentiments captured in a revered Oslerian axiom: “The art of the practice of medicine is to be learned only by experience; ‘tis not an inheritance; it cannot be revealed… Know that by practice alone you can become expert.”  Explicit in this epigraph is the need for experience.  Implicit, but especially relevant today, is the need for aspiring expert diagnosticians to deliberatelypractice the components of diagnostic reasoning.  Otherwise, carrying forward today’s practice habits creates a cadre of experienced but overconfident non-experts – a perfect recipe for stagnation, repeated errors, and adverse patient outcomes.

 

 

 

 

Jayshil Patel, MD is an Associate Professor of Medicine (Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine) at MCW. He is a member of the Curriculum Pillar in the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Institute for the Transformation of Medical Education.

 

Paul Bergl, MD is an Assistant Professor of Medicine (Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine) at MCW.

 

 

Can the Observation of Art Make us Better Clinicians?

From the 1/29/2021 newsletter 

Perspective/Opinion

 

 

Can the Observation of Art Make us Better Clinicians?

 

 

By Stephen Humphrey, MD, Valerie Carlberg, MD, Alexandria Bear, MD, and Arthur Derse, MD, JD

 

 

Drs. Humphrey, Carlberg, Bear, and Derse describe how teaching Visual Thinking Strategies can improve perspective, communication, and empathy …

 

 

When people think of medical education, they envision the sciences – biology, pharmacology, physiology, and anatomy – among others. Artistry, or the consideration of art, is typically not deemed relevant to the skills a physician must acquire.  Despite this, many trainees have heard the adage “medicine is an art.” This phrase typically arises after a nuanced physical exam finding, an innocuous but relevant comment in a patient history, or the success of a forgotten treatment modality for a recalcitrant condition. The term “art” in that context means the application of knowledge, skills, and judgment. The Oxford Dictionary also defines, “art,” however, as “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture.” If we agree that medicine is both a science and an art, can observation of art make us better physicians?

 

In fact, research shows the study of art in medical education improves visual literacy, diagnostic accuracy, communication, self-reflection, tolerance for ambiguity, and builds empathy. Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) is a teaching method based on the research of psychologist, Abigail Housen, and museum educator, Philip Yenawine, that has been effectively integrated into the curriculum at several medical schools. 

 

 

Visual Thinking Strategies – Questions

 

VTS is a method of art observation in which students are presented with a piece of art and VTS facilitators utilize three sequential, open-ended questions: 

 

“What’s going on in this picture?”

“What do you see that makes you say that?”

“What more can we find?” 

 

The questions guide students’ critical thinking. Skills derived from VTS can be applied to diverse scenarios, including the physical examination as well as discussions with patients or colleagues. At institutions utilizing VTS, it is incorporated into elective or mandatory courses for medical students in all phases of training. Usually, the VTS curriculum is a longitudinal experience over the course of a month or months. Though less common, some studies show benefit from a solitary experience or the ability to integrate VTS over several years.

 

 

A collaboration between MCW and the Milwaukee Art Museum

 

During the 2019-2020 academic year, Drs. Valerie Carlberg, Alexandria Bear, and Stephen Humphrey introduced VTS at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Their project, entitled “The Art of Observation,” was supported by the Kern Institute’s Transformational Ideas Initiative (TI²) grant mentored by Dr. Arthur Derse, in a collaboration with the Milwaukee Art Museum. 

 

The first session was implemented as part of the “Art of Medicine Through the Humanities” elective directed by Dr. Derse. Fifteen fourth-year medical students participated. Students observed art and clinical images and recorded their observations. Pre- and post-session surveys were distributed and the quality and quantity of their responses was evaluated in a blinded fashion. Not surprisingly, the session led to a substantial increase in the number of observations and descriptors. Students reported that the session was valuable, citing that it enhanced their ability to analyze images critically, articulate observations, and understand multiple perspectives. We look forward to hosting more sessions post-COVID-19.

 

 

Opportunities

Within the last year, VTS has been described and celebrated in the AAMC’s Report on The Fundamental Role of the Arts and Humanities in Medical Education (FRAHME) (AAMC, 2020). In the future, we envision The Art of Observation taking place over three to six sessions with roughly ten to thirty students each. This would include an introduction to VTS followed by sessions evaluating portraits, landscapes, and abstract art. Expanded techniques would include the evaluation of medical photographs, “back-to-back” drawing, and asking students to serve as facilitators. We might later include residents, fellows, and faculty members, advancing the Kern Institute’s goals of character, competence, and caring. 

 

 

The carryover into clinical medicine

 

By sharing observations aloud, participants will build confidence in diagnostic reasoning. Through listening and paraphrasing others’ observations, students will develop appreciation for diverse perspectives and increased tolerance for situations where there is no clear answer. Additionally, students will self-reflect and evaluate their assumptions, values, bias, and stigma, thereby building cultural competency, social intelligence, and caring. 

 

At a time of great challenge throughout the world, The Art of Observation and VTS can empower physicians-in-training at MCW to embrace whatever situations arise with improved perspective, communication, and empathy.   

 

 

Drs. Humphrey and Carlberg are Assistant Professors of Dermatology (Pediatrics) at MCW.

 

Dr. Bear is Assistant Professor of Medicine (Hospice and Palliative Medicine) at MCW.

 

Dr. Derse is Professor and Director of the Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities (Institute for Health and Equity), and a faculty member of the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Institute for the Transformation of Medical Education.

 

Educationally Sensitive Patient Outcomes (ESPOs): The Holy Grail for Transformation of Medical Education Research

From the 1/29/2021 newsletter

Director’s Corner

 

 

Educationally Sensitive Patient Outcomes (ESPOs): The Holy Grail for Transformation of Medical Education Research 

 

 

Adina Kalet, MD MPH

 

 

In this Director’s Corner, Dr. Kalet introduces our community to ESPOs and reports on the Kern Institute’s first Invitational International Conference on Medical Education and Patient Outcomes …

 

 

 

Medical Education Research is a young science. When I started out, this work was mostly done by front line (and very busy) medical educators working with a few learning-scientist colleagues. We studied how the structure and process of learning – and individual characteristics of learners and instructional designs – affected individual student learning outcomes. Most studies were small, single institution, and predominately cross-sectional projects that had no comparisons or controls; not surprisingly, our literature was roundly criticized for a lack of rigor and for focusing on questions that had “marginal significance for actual practice”(Ouch!). In retrospect, these criticisms were correct and, by the way, who wants to do “marginally significant” work? We knew we could do better. 

 

Many experts in the field vehemently pushed back, though, insisting that doing better was not possible, that there wasn’t enough funding, that studying a physician’s impact on health was too complex, and that rigorous studies would take the “art” out of the practice. I disagreed with these experts and, as you know, I love a good challenge.

 

About ten years ago, my colleagues and I wrote a paper calling on medical education researchers to step up our game. We argued that it was possible to identify learnable, teachable, and measurable “intermediate outcomes” of medical education that were directly linked to good outcomes for patients and populations. We called these Educationally Sensitive Patient Outcomes (ESPOs) and proposed three measurable parameters: Patient Activation, Microsystem Activation, and Health Literacy (Kalet, 2010, Yin 2015). We then set to work to systematically test the theory. It was slow going. 

 

When you publish a paper, you are joining a conversation. You take turns, building on each other’s work, critiquing and debating. If you are lucky this leads to “cold calls,” a cup of coffee at professional meeting and, before you know it, you have friends all over the world who share your world view!  

 

After a decade of ESPOs conversations, the Kern Institute sponsored the first, of hopefully many, Invitational Medical Education and Patient Outcomes Conferences this past Monday. Zoom enabled fifteen of us, representing three distinct research teams, three countries (US, Canada and the Netherlands) and nine institutions including the Medical College of Wisconsin, to meet for three hours to share our work, cross-fertilize ideas, and seek opportunities to build a “collaboratory.”

 

 

Here are the stories these folks shared. 

 

 

Resident Sensitive Quality Measures (RSQMs)

 

Can we measure how well resident physicians provide care to children in the Pediatric Emergency room using data from the electronic medical record (EHR)?  Daniel Schumacher, Pediatric Emergency Medicine Doctor at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, and his team thought it was worth trying. After working with residents and supervising attendings to identify what data in the EHR actually reflect the resident’s contribution to patient care in three specific clinical situations (asthma, bronchiolitis, and closed head injury), he conducted a series of elegant studies to define these RSQMs. MCW’s own Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician, Abigail Schuh and I, are on the team funded by the National Board of Medical Examiners to “validate” his RSQM model using actual clinical data from MCW and NYU (Smirnova, 2019). The team’s leading data analyst, Saad Chahine, PhD, Associate Professor of Measurement and Assessment at the Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Ontario, presented early findings. This RSQM model is looking promising. It is likely to generate compelling and motivating real patient outcome data that can be fed back to our residents and program directors, thus ensuring these pediatricians will be ready for independent practice. 

 

 

Measuring Resident Operative Performance 

 

Not surprisingly, some near-graduate surgery residents are not yet ready for unsupervised practice. Surgeon Brian C. George, MD at the University of Michigan and his team, including data scientist Andrew Krumm, PhD, Assistant Professor of Learning Health Sciences, have been studying the value of a just-in-time operative performance assessment collected frictionlessly using a smart phone-based software application (SIMPL). Brian runs the Center for Surgical Training and Research and serves as the Executive Director of the Society for Improving Medical Professional Learning (SIMPL), an international collaborative of 129 surgery training programs (Williams, 2017). Through this network, he has collected huge numbers of directly observed measures of resident performance during procedures that surgeons agree are important –appendectomy, inguinal hernia, cholecystectomy, colectomy among others – and can link these measures to Medicare insurance claims data, assessing for complications and outcomes. With their evolving data analytic sophistication, predictions can be made that help us better educate proceduralists to master their craft.  

 

 

Databased for Research in Education in Academic Medicine (DREAM)

 

In 1948, researchers enrolled 5209 adults from Framingham MA in a heart disease risk study and have been following them and their offspring ever since. Almost everything we know about preventing heart attacks and strokes has emerged from this Framingham Heart Study. As Internists, Dr. Sandra Zabar, the 2020 AAMC Abraham Flexner award winner (I am boasting for my friend) and I were inspired by the study team’s “stick-to-it-iv-ness”!  Starting in 2004, The Program for Medical Education Innovations and Research (PrMEIR) at NYU School of Medicine started our own “Framingham-like study” of medical education. Every year, our team seeks medical students’ permission to collect all their admissions, assessment, and survey data from entry to medical school through residency training and into practice. Over the years, most agree (~85%), and almost 3,000 students and residents have been enrolled. So far, this Databased for Research in Education in Academic Medicine (DREAM) has enabled over seventy-five studies (Gillespie, 2016). Colleen Gillespie, PhD, Associate Professor and Director of Education Quality for the Institute for Innovation in Medical Education at NYU, talked about how this longitudinal data can be  used to build individual and aggregate “learning curves,” showing how, for instance,  clinical communication skills develop over the course of medical school and residency, are predicated by admissions data, influenced by curriculum, and related to the outcomes among the patients these physicians care for early in practice. I’m not sure we will be doing this for the next fifty-six years ourselves but, with some luck, others will. 

 

 

Why this is important

 

These types of studies carry implications far beyond the walls of academic medicine. As we work to transform medical education and help nurture the development of character-driven practicing physicians, we must study the impact of educational innovations and make certain we are studying outcomes that matter. 

 

This work carries societal implications. Currently, US taxpayers invest well over $15 Billion each year in resident education via Direct Graduate Medical Education (DGME) and Indirect Medical Education (IME) support, primarily through Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs. We need to understand how best to maximize the country’s return on this investment. 

 

This work carries personal implications, as well. Students take on enormous personal debt and invest the prime years of their lives to pursue their careers. Are our educational interventions effective in helping them take control of their education and making certain they are ready, healthy, and able to safely enter practice?

 

Next Steps

 

As you can imagine, the conversation was lively and could have gone on for a long time if not for Zoom fatigue. The data scientists (including Kern’s own Tavinder Ark, PhD) communed around the potential to aggregate various approaches to data analysis and how recursive systems could feed data back to learners and educational leaders, enabling real, virtuous cycles of learning. The medical educators talked about the value of knowing what really matters to patients, both in terms of their health outcomes and their experiences of care. And, of course, we considered the unintentional downside of using clinical and insurance claims data to measure the “quality” of our novice physicians. While the risks are real, the benefits to patients and learners far outweigh the risks if done with a growth mindset, with careful deliberation, and within ethical guardrails. 

 

We resolved to meet as a group at least one more time and then consider conducting a symposium opened up to the larger community. The Kern Institute will continue to convene small and large groups of medical educators and scholars to “lift” the work and identify promising avenues for transformation. Stay tuned! 

 

 

 

For further reading: 

 

Kalet, AL, Gillespie, CC, Schwartz, MD, Holmboe, ES, Ark, TK, Jay, M, ... & Gourevitch, MN (2010). New measures to establish the evidence base for medical education: Identifying educationally sensitive patient outcomes. Academic Medicine, 85(5), 844-851. 

 

Yin, HS, Jay, M, Maness, L, Zabar, S, & Kalet, A (2015). Health literacy: An educationally sensitive patient outcome. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30(9), 1363-1368.

 

Smirnova, A, Sebok-Syer, SS, Chahine, S, Kalet, AL, Tamblyn, R, Lombarts, KM, ... & Schumacher, DJ (2019). Defining and adopting clinical performance measures in graduate medical education: Where are we now and where are we going? Academic Medicine, 94(5), 671-677.

 

Williams, RG, George, BC, Meyerson, SL, Bohnen, JD, Dunnington, GL, Schuller, MC, ... & Collaborative, S (2017). What factors influence attending surgeon decisions about resident autonomy in the operating room? Surgery, 162(6), 1314-1319.

 

Gillespie, C, Zabar, S, Altshuler, L, Fox, J, Pusic, M, Xu, J, & Kalet, A (2016). The Research on Medical Education Outcomes (ROMEO) Registry: Addressing ethical and practical challenges of using “bigger,” longitudinal educational data. Academic Medicine, 91(5), 690-695.

 

 

 

 

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.

Dartmouth's Arts & Humanities in Healthcare - 1/29/2021 8:00 - 2:00 CST

 Dartmouth's Arts & Humanities in Healthcare - 1/29/2021 8:00 - 2:00 CST

Here is a link to a day celebrating Dartmouth's Medical Humanities work and research.

Dartmouth-Hitchcock 2nd Annual Arts and Humanities in Healthcare Symposium

Symposium link will be sent out the morning of the event.

Schedule

NOTE: TIMES LISTED ARE LOCAL TIMES IN VERMONT

9:45  Musical prelude Margaret Stephens, Therapeutic Harpist, Dartmouth-Hitchcock

10:00  Welcome and introductions
Lara Ronan, MD, FAAN Associate Professor of Neurology and Medicine Geisel School of Medicine, Vice Chair of Education Dartmouth-Hitchcock Department of Neurology

10:05  Creative arts intervention for patients with refractory epilepsy: A preliminary report
Lara Ronan, MD, FAAN Associate Professor of Neurology and Medicine Geisel School of Medicine, Vice Chair of Education Dartmouth-Hitchcock Department of Neurology

10:15  Telling Our Stories Reinvented: Turning an in-person event into an engaging virtual experience
Andrea Buccellato, Manager, Patient and Family Support Services, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Norris Cotton Cancer Center

10:25  ‘Art at Work’ Repurposed: Adaptations and accomplishments
Marion L. Cate, MEd, CHES, CWWPM, CHC Manager, Health Improvement Program, Employee Wellness, Instructor in Medicine Geisel School of Medicine

10:35  Virtual Perspectives: Art and conversation for people living with memory loss
Claire Lyon, Docent Hood Museum of Art Neely McNulty,
Hood Foundation Associate Curator of Education

10:50  Expressive writing exercise
Marv Klassen-Landis, Creative Writing Specialist, Dartmouth-Hitchcock

11:05  Picturing Contagion: Contextualizing visual iconographies around COVID-19
Emily Luy Tan, Dartmouth College, Class of 2020

11:25  Evidence Based Design in Health: A COVID College Semester 
Erin McGee Ferrell, Professional Artist, Art Educator, University of New England Cancer Patient Advocate National Cancer Institute

11:40  Science, Values and the Novel
Alan Hartford, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Geisel School of Medicine

11:55  Lunch break and musical prelude
Margaret Stephens, Therapeutic Harpist, Dartmouth-Hitchcock

12:15  Keynote: Arts in health research in a post-COVID world
Jill Sonke, PhD, Director, University of Florida Center for Arts in Medicine

1:15  Passages of Writes: Medical students fostering connections through shared reading
Christopher LaRocca, MD, FAAFP, Clinical Associate Professor of Community and Family Medicine, Geisel School of Medicine, Aya Bashi, MS2,Lindsay Becker, MS2, Rachel Brown, MS2, Zachary Panton, MS2

1:30  Mindful art project
Kim Wenger Hall, Visual Artist, Dartmouth-Hitchcock

1:45  What about clinician burnout, anxiety, and PTSD during COVID-19? What are the arts bringing to support them?
Alan Siegel, MD, Director, Art of Health and Healing, Founding Board Member NOAH

2:15  2020 Arts-based initiatives at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
Mallory Van Fossen, ATR-BC, LCPAT, LPC, Art Therapist, Clinical Coordinator of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center’s Arts in Health Program

2:45  Closing remarks

Learning Outcome:

At the conclusion of this learning activity, participants will be able to recognize the value and impact of the arts and humanities on health and well being.