Rebecca Miller-Kuhlmann, MD, is a board certified Neurologist and a Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurology & Neurological Sciences. Her clinical interest focus on the diagnosis and treatment of neurologic conditions. She loves clinical medicine and works actively to maintain a wide-breadth of knowledge in order to best treat complex patients with multiple neurologic conditions. Her fellowship training in Clinical Neurology had primary foci in movement disorders, memory/cognitive disorders, neuromuscular medicine/EMG/NCS studies, and therapeutic applications of botulinum toxin with supplementary training in multiple sclerosis/neuroimmunology, epilepsy and headache medicine.
As a former public school teacher, she completed an honors certificate in medical education from Stanford during her residency training and is passionate about medical education. She served as an education chief resident and continues to deeply enjoy working with medical students and residents both in the classroom and in the clinic. She co-directs the neurology preclinical block for medical school and in 2020 has had the priviledge to begin co-directing the Science of Medicine preclinical course which comprises ~40% of the preclinical curriculum as well as a novel communication coaching program for Neurology residents.
Her additional academic interests include mitigation of the epidemic of physician burnout, for which she is a graduate of the American Academy of Neurology's Live Well Lead Well Leadership program and has co-developed and directs a wellness program for neurology residents and fellows. On becoming faculty she began serving as the Neurology Department Wellbeing Director for faculty as well. She has also completed the Stanford CELT (clinical education leadership training) program for developing skills in quality improvement and enjoys teaching and fostering quality improvement work within the Stanford Neurology Residency
Clinical Assistant Professor, Neurology & Neurological Sciences
Honors & Awards
AAN Live Well Lead Well Leadership Program Graduate, American Academy of Neurology (2018)
Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Society, Stanford University (2017)
Christine Wijman Humanism in Medicine Award, Stanford University (2017)
Fisher's & Dunn Teaching Award, Stanford University (2017)
Neurology Clerkship Teaching Award, Stanford University (2014)
Dean's Award for Student Research (Health Profession's Education Pathway), UCSF (2013)
Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society, Duke University (2007)
Board Certification, American Board of Electrodiagnostic Medicine (2020)
Board Certification: American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, Neurology (2017)
Fellowship, Clinical Neurology, Stanford University (2018)
Residency: Stanford University Neurology Residency (2017) CA
Internship: Santa Clara Valley Medical Center Internal Medicine Residency (2014) CA
Medical Education: University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine (2013) CA
Education Research: A novel resident-driven neurology quality improvement curriculum.
2020; 94 (3): 137–42
OBJECTIVE: To describe and assess the effectiveness of a neurology resident quality improvement curriculum focused on development of practical skills and project experience.METHODS: We designed and implemented a quality improvement curriculum composed of (1) a workshop series and (2) monthly resident-led Morbidity, Mortality, & Improvement conferences focused on case analysis and project development. Surveys were administered precurriculum and 18 months postcurriculum to assess the effect on self-assessed confidence with quality improvement skills, attitudes, and project participation. Scholarship in the form of posters, presentations, and manuscripts was tracked during the course of the study.RESULTS: Precurriculum, 83% of neurology residents felt that instruction in quality improvement was important, but most rated their confidence level with various skills as low. Following implementation of the curriculum, residents were significantly more confident in analyzing a patient case (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) (2.4, 1.9-3.1), proposing system changes (3.1, 2.3-3.9), writing a problem statement (9.9, 6.2-13.5), studying a process (3.1, 2.3-3.8), identifying resources (3.1, 2.3-3.8), identifying appropriate measures (2.5, 1.9-3.0), collaborating with other providers to make improvements (4.9, 3.5-6.4), and making changes in a system (3.1, 2.3-3.8). Project participation increased from the precurriculum baseline (7/18, 39%) to the postcurriculum period (17/22, 77%; p = 0.023). One hundred percent of residents surveyed rated the curriculum positively.CONCLUSIONS: Our multifaceted curriculum was associated with increased resident confidence with quality improvement skills and increased participation in improvement projects. With adequate faculty mentorship, this curriculum represents a novel template for preparing neurology residents for meeting the expectations of improvement in practice and offers scholarship opportunities.
View details for DOI 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008752
View details for PubMedID 31959682
Making Well Neurologists: A Multifaceted Program for Neurology Trainee and Faculty Wellbeing
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. 2019
View details for Web of Science ID 000475965902083
A Quality Improvement Curriculum for Neurology Residents
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. 2018
View details for Web of Science ID 000453090805218
Essential steps in developing best practices to assess reflective skill: A comparison of two rubrics
2016; 38 (1): 75-81
Medical education lacks best practices for evaluating reflective writing skill. Reflection assessment rubrics include the holistic, reflection theory-based Reflection-on-Action and the analytic REFLECT developed from both reflection and narrative-medicine literatures. To help educators move toward best practices, we evaluated these rubrics to determine (1) rater requirements; (2) score comparability; and (3) response to an intervention.One-hundred and forty-nine third-year medical students wrote reflections in response to identical prompts. Trained raters used each rubric to score 56 reflections, half written with structured guidelines and half without. We used Pearson's correlation coefficients to associate overall rubric levels and independent t-tests to compare structured and unstructured reflections.Reflection-on-Action training required for two hours; two raters attained an interrater-reliability = 0.91. REFLECT training required six hours; three raters achieved an interrater-reliability = 0.84. Overall rubric correlation was 0.53. Students given structured guidelines scored significantly higher (p < 0.05) on both rubrics.Reflection-on-Action and REFLECT offer unique educational benefits and training challenges. Reflection-on-Action may be preferred for measuring overall quality of reflection given its ease of use. Training on REFLECT takes longer but it yields detailed data on multiple dimensions of reflection that faculty can reference when providing feedback.
View details for DOI 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1034662
View details for PubMedID 25923234
The regulatory easy street: Self-regulation below the self-control threshold does not consume regulatory resources
PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
2012; 52 (8): 898-902
We present and test a theory in which self-control is distinguished from broader acts of self-regulation when it is both effortful and conscious. In two studies, we examined whether acts of behavioral management that do not require effort are exempt from resource depletion. In Study 1, we found that a self-regulation task only reduced subsequent self-control for participants who had previously indicated that completing the task would require effort. In Study 2, we found that participants who completed a self-regulation task for two minutes did not evidence the subsequent impairment in self-control evident for participants who had completed the task for four or more minutes. Our results support the notion that self-regulation without effort falls below the self-control threshold and has different downstream consequences than self-control.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.028
View details for Web of Science ID 000303084800007
View details for PubMedID 22711963
View details for PubMedCentralID PMC3375861