BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Reflective writing in medicine allows for the opportunity to analyze, interpret, and learn from clinical experiences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the beneficial effects of reflective reading and writing for a department using a weekly listserve. METHODS: The Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Massachusetts Medical School sends out a weekly reflective writing story written by its members to celebrate clinical/teaching success. We conducted a 19-item questionnaire in the summer of 2014 among all 402 members. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 161 of 402 (40%) readers and 50 of 122 (41%) writers. Readers found many benefits; 84% reported learning "a lot" about how a colleague handled a certain clinical situation, while 79% found that the reflective writing listserve helped them feel more connected to colleagues. A total of 83% reported that reading the weekly story positively affected their empathy and patient centeredness. Those who reported reading the stories most often were more likely to report achieving the most benefits. The majority of respondents who wrote stories agreed with all suggested benefits of writing; 73% reported that writing allowed them to celebrate a patient/research/teaching encounter that they were proud of, and 72% reported that it gave them better perspective or clarity about a patient experience "a lot" of the time. CONCLUSIONS: As departments struggle with provider burnout and feelings of being overwhelmed and disconnected, strategies like a reflective writing listserve may be a means to improve support and inspire clinicians and learners to feel fulfilled.

Objective: Nurse practitioner (NP) students at our graduate school of nursing use WISE-MDTM simulation modules in the curriculum. This prospective randomized controlled pilot study was undertaken to evaluate critical-thinking outcomes associated with adding metacognitive deliberate-reflection guidance to the learning strategy with WISE-MDTM simulation modules. Methods: Of 33 NP students randomly assigned to intervention and control groups, 16 completed the study. The intervention group received WISE-MDTM learning modules with specific guidance or deliberate reflection. Controls used the modules with instructions for periodic free-thought reflections. Students’ tape-recorded reflections were categorized according to author-developed critical-thinking categories. Data were analyzed using NVIVOTM. Students’ feedback was collected by post-intervention anonymous survey. Results: Critical thinking outcomes (student responses to exercises after free-thinking or deliberate-reflection guidance) did not differ between groups. However, the intervention group demonstrated a higher level of critical thought after deliberate-reflection guidance. Post-intervention quantitative and qualitative feedback from both groups endorsed the value of the WISE-MDTM modules for NP education. Conclusions: Despite no difference in unprompted outcomes between groups, the intervention group often verbalized more thoughtful clinical decision-making. We speculate that the deliberate-reflection guidance intervention utilized with students throughout only two modules was insufficient for them to internalize the critical-thinking process. We propose using free-thought reflections with one or two WISE-MDTM modules to identify struggling students’ clinical decision-making process. These students’ remediation plan could include recording their deliberate-reflection process while viewing WISE-MDTM modules. Students would be guided to verbalize and record their critical-thinking processes for faculty review until students sufficiently integrate the process into their clinical decision-making.