The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education calls for resident participation in real or simulated interprofessional analysis of a patient safety event. click here There are far more residents who must participate in these investigations than available institutional root cause analyses (RCAs) to accommodate them. To correct this imbalance, the authors developed an institutionally sponsored, interprofessional RCA simulation program and implemented it across all graduate medical education (GME) residency programs at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. The authors developed RCA simulations based upon authentic adverse events experienced at their institution. To provide relevance to all GME programs, RCA simulation cases varied widely and included examples of errors involving high-risk medications, communication, invasive procedures, and specimen labeling. Each simulation included residents and other health care professionals such as nurses or pharmacists whose disciplines were involved in the acan to expand the RCA simulation program to other GME clinical sites while striving to involve all GME learners in this educational experience at least once during training. Additionally, by collaborating with health system patient safety leaders, they will annually review all new RCAs to identify cases suitable for simulation adaptation. Evaluation of the medical profession at all levels has exposed episodes of gender-based role misidentification whereby women physicians are disproportionately misidentified as nonphysicians. The authors of this study investigate this phenomenon and its repercussions, quantifying the frequency with which resident physicians experience role misidentification and the effect this has on their experience and behavior. In 2018, the authors conducted a cross-sectional survey study of internal medicine, surgical, and emergency medicine residents at a single, large, urban, tertiary academic medical center. The survey tool captured both the self-reported frequency and effect of professional misidentification. The authors used a t test and linear multivariate regression to analyze the results. Of the 260 residents who received the survey, 186 (72%) responded, and the authors analyzed the responses of 182. All 85 of the women respondents (100%) reported being misidentified as nonphysicians at least once in their prification provokes gender-polarized psychological and behavioral responses that have potentially important professional ramifications.Internal medicine (IM) residents frequently perform invasive bedside procedures during residency training. Bedside procedure training in IM programs may compromise patient safety. Current evidence suggests that IM training programs rely heavily on the number of procedures completed during training as a proxy for resident competence instead of using objective post-procedure patient outcomes. The authors posit that the results of procedural training effectiveness should be reframed with outcome metrics rather than process measures alone. This article introduces the As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) approach, which originated the nuclear industry to increase safety margins, to help assess and reduce bedside procedural risks. Training program directors are encouraged to use ALARA calculations to define the risk trade-offs inherent in current procedural training and assess how best to reliably improve patient outcomes. The authors describe 5 options to consider training all residents in bedside procedures; training only select residents in bedside procedures; training no residents in bedside procedures; deploying 24-hour procedure teams supervised by IM faculty; and deploying 24-hour procedure teams supervised by non-IM faculty. The authors explore how quality improvement approaches using process maps, fishbone diagrams, failure mode effects and analyses, and risk matrices can be effectively implemented to assess training resources, choices, and aims. Future research should address the drivers behind developing optimal training programs that support independent practice, correlations with patient outcomes, and methods that enable faculty to justify their supervisory decisions while adhering to ALARA risk management standards.The author of this medical humanities article is a clinician-educator who finds himself relying more and more on poetry to make sense of the complexity, frustration, and wonder that attend the work of doctoring. Here, he posits that poems, in all their forms, are attempts at establishing order and meaning through meter, language, and sound, and that they may be particularly valuable for medical students and residents as they develop professional identities, habits, and coping strategies. The author recalls that for Edward Hirsch, poetry is "a way of connecting-through the medium of language-more deeply with yourself even as you connect more deeply with others." It is this purpose-to connect learners with themselves, their patients, and one another-that compels the author to read poems to teams of residents and medical students in lieu of traditional afternoon teaching rounds. In this article, the author artfully illustrates one such "Post-Call Poetry" session, quoting some of the poems he shares with learners. At the end of each two-week rotation on the wards, few of the learners remark on the attending's lessons on pathophysiology; however, nearly all of them, regardless of their background or career path, express appreciation for the poetry.Scholars are increasingly aware that studies-across many disciplines-cannot be replicated by independent researchers. Here, the authors describe how medical education research may be vulnerable to this "replication crisis," explain how researchers can act together to reduce risks, and discuss the positive steps that can increase confidence in research findings. Medical education research contributes to policy and influences practitioner behavior. Findings that cannot be replicated suggest the original research was not credible. This risk raises the possibility that unhelpful or even harmful changes to medical education have been implemented as a result of research that appeared defensible but was not. By considering these risk factors, researchers can increase the likelihood that studies are generating credible results. The authors discuss and provide examples of six factors that may endanger the replicability of medical education research (1) small sample sizes, (2) small effect sizes, (3) exploratory designs, (4) flexibility in design choices, analysis strategy, and outcome measures, (5) conflicts of interest, and (6) very active fields with many competing research teams.