Background: Interprofessional communication is fundamental to the delivery of healthcare and can be taught in medical school and other health professional schools through interprofessional education (IPE) activities. Simulation centers have become a predominant location for simulation IPE activities with infrastructure able to support high fidelity activities in a controlled environment. In this secondary analysis of a scoping review conducted on simulation-based IPE, we describe the characteristics of previously reported simulation IPE activities involving undergraduate medical students in a simulation center focused on interprofessional communication.Methods: Electronic searches of PubMed, CINAHL, and ERIC databases in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines were conducted to isolate relevant articles from 2016–2020. In total, 165 peer-reviewed articles met inclusion criteria and data extraction linked to four research questions was applied by one individual and the accuracy was confirmed by a second individual. A secondary analysis was performed to describe what existing approaches for simulation IPE in simulation center settings have been used to explicitly achieve interprofessional communication competencies in undergraduate medical education. A sub-dataset was developed from the original scoping review and identified 21 studies describing simulation IPE activities that took place in dedicated simulation centers, targeted the IPEC interprofessional communication domain, and involved undergraduate medical students.Results: Though diverse, the majority of simulation IPE activities described high-fidelity approaches involving standardized patients and utilized assessment tools with established validity evidence in IPE activities to measure learning outcomes. A minority of simulation IPE activities were described as hybrid and utilized more than one resource or equipment for the activity and only two were longitudinal in nature. Learning outcomes were focused predominantly on modification of attitudes/perceptions and few targeted higher levels of assessment.Conclusions: Educators charged with developing simulation IPE activities for medical students focused on interprofessional communication should incorporate assessment tools that have validity evidence from similar activities, target higher level learning outcomes, and leverage hybrid models to develop longitudinal simulation IPE activities. Though an ideal environment to achieve higher level learning outcomes, simulation centers are not required for meaningful simulation IPE activities.

From the hospitalist perspective, triaging involves the evaluation of a patient for potential admission to an inpatient service. Although traditionally done by residents, many academic hospitalist groups have assumed the responsibility for triaging. We conducted a cross‐sectional survey of 235 adult hospitalists at 10 academic medical centers (AMCs) to describe the similarities and differences in the triagist role and assess the activities and skills associated with the role. Eight AMCs have a defined triagist role; at the others, hospitalists supervise residents/advanced practice providers. The triagist role is generally filled by a faculty physician and shared by all hospitalists.We found significant variability in verbal communication practices (P = .02) and electronic communication practices (P < .0001) between the triagist and the current provider (eg, emergency department, clinic provider), and in the percentage of patients evaluated in person (P < .0001). Communication skills, personal efficiency, and systems knowledge are dominant themes of attributes of an effective triagist.

Background: Gaps in obesity medicine education remain in undergraduate and graduate medical education. As obesity impacts many chronic diseases, this gap is significant for the overall educational program. Our aim was to develop and evaluate a multi-institutional collaborative approach with content expertise for implementing an obesity medicine curriculum in undergraduate medical education, while addressing documented implementation barriers and documenting lessons learned. Activity: Eight geographically, institutionally diverse U.S. medical schools participated in this study. A three-phase study (planning, implementation, evaluation) from 2023 to 2025 was implemented. Local faculty champions comprehensively evaluated the program using a logic model framework with a mixed methods design. Results: Acceptability was high: 100% of faculty champions agreed the project was worth their time and were satisfied with outcomes. Feasibility was strong, with minimal content displacement and most (87.5%) reporting sustainability. Most champions (87.50%) perceived that student knowledge and preparedness to care for patients with obesity had improved. Key benefits included collaboration, networking, and gap identification; major challenges included limited curricular space, timeline alignment, and faculty/student interest. Lessons learned highlighted stakeholder engagement, faculty development for knowledge and obesity bias, strategic integration, evaluation, and multi-institutional collaboration. Discussion: The lessons learned from this novel approach can support other institutions implementing obesity education in undergraduate medical education curricula.