MedEd Insights

Episode 9: Before You Fail — What Medical Education Gets Wrong About Risk, Readiness, and Rescue

What happens before a medical student fails? Medical education has become increasingly adept at identifying learners at risk for poor outcomes on high-stakes exams like USMLE Step 1. But far less attention has been paid to how, or when, institutions should intervene. In this episode of MedEd Insights, we speak with Dr. Meghan Kiefer, Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, about a proactive, competency-informed curriculum designed to support academically vulnerable students before the dedicated study period begins. Drawing on her team’s work evaluating the Comprehensive Basic Sciences Review (CBSR) course, we explore how timing, confidence, and structured support can meaningfully change exam trajectories without delaying graduation. This conversation goes beyond Step 1 scores to ask deeper questions about readiness, equity, and responsibility in medical education, and what it means to design systems that intervene before struggle becomes failure. Article Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41388412/ [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41388412/]

Episode 8: The 100-Question Myth — When Reliable Exams Make the Wrong Decision

Medical exams are often judged by one gold standard: reliability. More questions, higher precision, stronger defensibility. But what if that metric is optimized for the wrong goal? In this episode of MedEd Insights, host Shankar speaks with Dr. Schauber, Associate Professor of Health Professions Education at the University of Oslo, about a deceptively simple question: If most medical exams are pass/fail, why are they designed using a metric that doesn’t even account for the pass/fail decision? Drawing from his paper "Challenging the Norm: Length of Exams Determined by Classification Accuracy or Reliability," Dr. Schauber unpacks why reliability almost always pushes exams toward excessive length, and how classification accuracy offers a more honest way to think about misclassification, failure rates, and fairness. Together, we explore the ethical consequences of false passes and false fails, the hidden politics of exam “defensibility,” and what it would mean to design assessments around the decisions that actually matter. Because sometimes the hardest question in medical education isn’t how precise an exam is, but rather, what decision it’s truly designed to make. Article link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40467533/ [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40467533/]

Episode 7: Shaken Awake – Twelve Minutes That Change How Doctors Listen

What happens when doctors stop standing, and start lying in the bed? In this immersive episode of MedEd Insights, we speak with David Engelhard, Director of the Topcare Foundation in the Netherlands, about a striking experiment in medical education: using virtual reality to turn healthcare professionals into patients. Based on his qualitative study, “You are shaken awake!”, this conversation explores what participants experienced during a 12-minute VR film in which they could not speak, interrupt, or advocate for themselves; only listen as care unfolded around them. What emerged was not cruelty, but something more unsettling: procedural invisibility. Professionals remembered the experience as harsher than it actually was, revealing how emotion, moral discomfort, and power shape memory in clinical practice. Drawing on Engelhard’s background in healthcare leadership, refugee advocacy, and Confucian philosophy, we examine: 1. Why empathy may be less about feeling, and more about attention 2. Whether this VR experience functions as a leadership intervention, not just an educational tool 3. How organizational culture, not individual failure, often produces patient harm 4. Why passivity and silence are central to understanding the patient experience 5. And why the most radical act in medical education may sometimes be doing nothing at all This episode is not about technology for its own sake. It’s about what becomes visible when professionals are asked to lie still, long enough to remember what it feels like to depend on someone else’s attention. 🎧 What would change in your practice if you spent twelve minutes there? Article link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41335557/ [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41335557/]

Episode 6: The Other Voice in the Room — Unpacking the Intruder Paradox

Imposter syndrome has long been framed as a personal flaw, an inner voice whispering that we don’t belong. But what if those doubts aren’t coming from within, but from the system itself? In this episode of MedEd Insights, we speak with Dr. LaDonna, first author of Introducing the intruder paradox: "It's not the imposter syndrome, it's you don't want me in the field", to explore their groundbreaking study of women physicians and trainees across Canada. Their research introduces the Intruder Paradox: a powerful new lens that reveals how external forces, not internal weakness, often drive feelings of not belonging. Together, they unpack the stories behind the data, the risks of mislabeling structural exclusion as personal insecurity, and what educators and leaders can do to create a culture where everyone belongs. If you’ve ever wrestled with imposter feelings, or mentored someone who has, this conversation might just change the way you see the phenomenon altogether. Article Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40509598/ [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40509598/ ]

Episode 5: Co-Signed by AI — The Future of Recommendation Letters in Medicine

Can AI make letters of recommendation stronger, fairer, and less burdensome? Dr. Deborah Bartz joins MedEd Insights to discuss her team’s pioneering framework for integrating generative AI into LOR writing. Together, we unpack the “why” behind this movement, the “how” of practical workflows, and the “what next” of ethical safeguards and future platforms. This episode is about more than technology; it’s about protecting mentorship while reimagining advocacy in academic medicine. Link to article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40127307/ [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40127307/]