DIOs and GME
Give every program the same starting point for communication remediation
Last updated: September 2026
Residents practice with AI patients and receive feedback against the standard approved for the case. The GME office gets a consistent program view under institution-defined access rules, while each program director and CCC keeps authority.
What's at stake
Remediation varies across programs
Each program may build its remediation approach independently, which makes it hard for GME leaders to see whether learners have a repeatable structure for practice and coaching.
Evidence is hard to compare
Competency standards give programs shared language for interpersonal and communication skills, but the observations and documentation available to each CCC still vary.
The record may be incomplete
A GME office may need to reconstruct which practice a learner completed, what feedback they received, and how faculty used that evidence in the remediation plan.
Repeated practice is hard to coordinate
Communication remediation requires repeated practice, but each standardized patient encounter requires actor time, space, faculty support, and scheduling. That makes a consistent institutional approach difficult to sustain across every program.
The numbers
mean specialist contact hours in one clinical reasoning remediation program
Guerrasio and Aagaard, J Gen Intern Med, 2014
evidence behind every practice score
ClinicalSim reporting method
rubric-scored documentation from every practice session
ClinicalSim reporting method
of 267 surveyed family medicine program directors reported at least one resident in remediation during the prior three years
CERA Survey, 267 family medicine program directors
How ClinicalSim helps
One reporting structure across programs
Every report uses a consistent structure while each case uses the communication framework that fits the specialty, learner, and task.
Documentation for review
Every practice session generates a timestamped, rubric-scored record that a program director, CCC, or GMEC can review alongside other evidence.
Keep practice inside the program
One institutional license can cover every program, learner, and competency committee cycle instead of sending each learner to a separate external assessment.
One program view
GME leaders can review participation and practice reports across programs without taking authority away from the program director or CCC.
Residency and fellowship
Every resident works the same sequence, from clear information delivery through uncertainty, family meetings, and leadership. Each conversation is scored against the competency standard and communication framework approved for the case, with the resident's own words quoted under every score.
Related insights
What the evidence says about communication training
Candello found a communication factor in 40% of asserted malpractice cases, and Chung's review of 20 training studies rated the evidence very low to low quality. Neither supports an ROI headline. What a program can measure is its own learners, scored against a named framework.
The faculty hour problem with communication remediation
One published clinical reasoning remediation program required a mean of 29.6 specialist contact hours. The figure is not a universal estimate, but it shows why programs should separate the decisions that need faculty judgment from the repetitions that do not.
When a simulation vendor shuts down, the program keeps the obligation
Kognito stopped selling in August 2023. Five questions to ask before a simulation vendor holds records your program needs for resident evaluation.
Questions we get from this seat
How can a GME office standardize communication remediation across programs?
A consistent report structure gives a GME office one program view while each case still uses the communication framework that fits the specialty, learner, and task. Residents receive feedback tied to the harmonized ICS language, and each program director and CCC keeps authority over the remediation plan.
What documentation does a GME office get from each practice session?
Every ClinicalSim practice session generates a timestamped record with feedback scored against the standard approved for the case and transcript evidence behind each score. A program director, CCC, or GMEC can review it alongside other evidence when a GME office needs to reconstruct which practice a learner completed and what feedback they received.
Does ClinicalSim take authority away from a program director or CCC?
No. GME leaders can review participation and practice reports across programs, and each program director and CCC keeps authority over the remediation plan and the decision. ClinicalSim adds a comparable evidence source; it does not adjudicate anything.