Use of individualized learning plans among fourth-year sub-interns in pediatrics and internal medicine

Figures & data

Table

Practice points

ILPs may be used as effective tools for promoting self-reflection and goal setting among medical students. Medical students most often self-identified strengths in the areas of Professionalism and Communication and weaknesses in Patient Care and Systems-Based Practice. When given freedom to generate their own learning objectives, most medical students set goals in areas corresponding to self-identified weaknesses.

Table 1.  Student self-ratings of strengths and weaknesses by category.

Core competency category	Internal medicine (n = 27)	Pediatrics (n = 23)	Wilcoxon test result
Patient care	55.4 59.6 64.1 (59.3 ± 7.8)	51.2 61.4 66.8 (59.1 ± 13.1)	F1,48 = 0.09, P = 0.77
Medical knowledge	49.0 61.0 71.0 (60.0 ± 12.0)	57.0 65.0 71.0 (63.0 ± 12.0)	F1,48 = 1.1, P = 0.31
Practice-based learning and improvement	62.0 68.0 73.0 (67.0 ± 11.0)	60.0 68.0 75.0 (68.0 ± 12.0)	F1,48 = 0, P = 0.98
Interpersonal and communication skills	65.5 73.0 76.8 (71.0 ± 10.2)	69.5 71.5 74.5 (72.2 ± 9.3)	F1,48 = 0.01, P = 0.90
Professionalism	80.0 86.0 89.0 (83.0 ± 11.0)	80.0 86.0 87.0 (84.0 ± 6.0)	F1,48 = 0.16, P = 0.69
Systems-based practice	49.0 54.0 63.0 (54.0 ± 13.0)	44.0 50.0 60.0 (52.0 ± 16.0)	F1,48 = 1.1, P = 0.31

Note: Scoring: 0 = complete weakness; 100 = complete strength. a b c represent the lower quartile a, the median b, and the upper quartile c for continuous variables. X ± s represents mean ± 1 SD.

Figure 1. Distribution of student learning objectives.

Figure 2. Elements of ILP exercise that students ranked as most useful.

Table 2.  Post-Rotation Student Evaluation of ILP Exercise.

Question	Student group	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Proportional odds likelihood ratio
Initial self-assessment of strengths and weaknesses helped to identify areas for improvement	IM (n = 19)	5% (1)	84% (16)	5% (1)	5% (1)	0% (0)	X2 = 1.52, p = 0.218
	Pediatrics (n = 21)	29% (6)	57% (12)	14% (3)	0% (0)	0% (0)
Initial self-assessment of strengths and weaknesses helped to guide development of learning objectives	IM	16% (3)	68% (13)	11% (2)	5% (1)	0% (0)	X2 = 1.74, p = 0.187
	Pediatrics	33% (7)	57% (12)	10% (2)	0% (0)	0% (0)
Exposure to the ACGME competencies as part of the strength/weakness self-assessment was useful at this point in my career	IM	21% (4)	47% (9)	26% (5)	5% (1)	0% (0)	X2 = 0.31, p = 0.581
	Pediatrics	24% (5)	52% (11)	24% (5)	0% (0)	0% (0)
Initial definition of career goals helped to provide context to ILP development	IM	11% (2)	58% (11)	26% (5)	5% (1)	0% (0)	X2 = 2.02, p = 0.155
	Pediatrics	33% (7)	43% (9)	24% (5)	0% (0)	0% (0)
I was able to create specific and achievable learning objectives	IM	42% (8)	47% (9)	5% (1)	5% (1)	0% (0)	X2 = 1.01, p = 0.31
	Pediatrics	57% (12)	38% (8)	0% (0)	5% (1)	0% (0)
I was able to create useful strategies to meet these learning objectives	IM	32% (6)	53% (10)	16% (3)	0% (0)	0% (0)	X2 = 1.06, p = 0.304
	Pediatrics	38% (8)	62% (13)	0% (0)	0% (0)	0% (0)
Weekly reassessment of learning objectives and strategies proved useful	IM	32% (6)	37% (7)	21% (4)	11% (2)	0% (0)	X2 = 7.02, p = 0.008
	Pediatrics	71% (15)	19% (4)	10% (2)	0% (0)	0% (0)
The setting of learning objectives and strategies helped me to accomplish more during my rotation	IM	32% (6)	47% (9)	16% (3)	5% (1)	0% (0)	X2 = 2.14, p = 0.144
	Pediatrics	57% (12)	29% (6)	10% (2)	5% (1)	0% (0)
Discussions that developed during group meetings contributed to my learning experience	IM	47% (9)	32% (6)	16% (3)	5% (1)	0% (0)	X2 = 1.22, p = 0.27
	Pediatrics	62% (13)	29% (6)	10% (2)	0% (0)	0% (0)

Note: Numbers after percentages are frequencies.