For the final semester of Clinical Correlations, my instructor was Professor Gary Maida.

Levels of Achievement Criteria	Proficient	Developing	Minimum Performance	Unsatisfactory
Content & Focus Weight 30.00%	95 % Clearly understands content, focused upon most relevant information. And uses best sources of evidence	85 % Familiar with content, may not be appropriately focused or does not use best sources of evidence	70 % Has some familiarity with content, but lacks focus on most important elements. Sources are tangentially relevant, but not on target.	0% Unfamiliar with content required for participation.
Logic and Flow Weight 30.00%	100 % Able to present an argument or topic in a logical and organized fashion.	95 % Presents an argument or topic in a thorough way, but needs better logic or organization	70 % Presents some aspects of topic well, but lacks logic or organization in other aspects	0% Disorganized presentation, not supporting point of view
Analysis Weight 30.00%	95 % Identifies relationships and components to clearly support opinions or ideas	85 % Identifies relationships and components, but lacks clarity in supporting opinions or ideas	70 % Identifies some relationships and components, but lacks some important connections.	0% Does not identify components or relationships
Communication/ Collaboration Weight 30.00%	100 % Demonstrates good listening and reflecting skills and contributes appropriately. Able to present clearly and effectively	85 % Listening or reflecting skills are good and contributes appropriately. Presents clearly, but could improve speaking style	70 % Listening or reflecting skills are minimal and contributes only minimally Presents information that is correct, but needs to work on clarity and speaking style	0% Does not contribute appropriately or lacks listening and

Throughout these sessions, I’ve witnessed significant growth in my confidence regarding decision- making and critical thinking. I’ve refined my ability to connect various class materials, especially by initially providing a top differential diagnosis and then adjusting it with gathered patient information. This method has played a pivotal role in my overall development.

Regarding Content & Focus, I have evaluated myself at 95%. I’ve deepened my familiarity with topics and maintained a sharper focus during discussions. While successfully considering and narrowing down differential diagnoses with evolving patient information, I recognize the need for further improvement in this skill. The simulation exercises, where we interpreted patient results and labs, offered invaluable real-life scenario insights, effectively preparing me for rotations.

In terms of Logic/Flow and Analysis, I’ve rated myself at 95%. I’m learning that presenting symptoms might not always directly relate to the final diagnosis. For instance, the case of the 5- year-old boy presenting with a red, puffy eye and later developing fever, lethargy, and knee pain, ultimately diagnosed with leukemia, emphasized this point vividly.

Our team dynamics have been positive, fostering reliance on each other as we gathered patient information. Presenting cases to the group has been a great learning experience, requiring in-depth research and guiding discussions on the subject and differential diagnoses. I’ve come to appreciate how seemingly unrelated questions can significantly impact the diagnostic process.

Reflecting on these sessions, it’s evident that this approach has been invaluable for my growth, enhancing not only my medical knowledge but also my collaborative and analytical skills essential for effective medical practice.

A surprising and demanding element in my experience was the regular rotation of instructors during the clinical correlations courses. I perceive this as immensely beneficial, exposing us, as students, to diverse educators with unique expectations for in-class presentations, participation, and our knowledge base. I believe this aspect closely parallels what we will face in the clinical year, and for that, I am truly appreciative. The tools I found most advantageous in the clinical correlations class were UpToDate, Pubmed, CMDT, NEJM, and Cochrane Reviews.