Category Archives: Education

The Silence Between Questions

by Crystel Harb, DO, MPH, DipABLM

Clinic was already running behind when she knocked on my office door. The fluorescent glow of the computer screen was the only light in the office. Outside, the clinic hummed with a sense of muted urgency. My resident looked flushed, a stack of papers with her laptop pressed to her chest like a shield. “Can you come in with me to see this patient?” she asked, voice steady but just above a whisper.

In the hallway, my resident, an incoming intern, confessed, “I’m nervous. I’ve never managed uncontrolled diabetes with complications alone.” I nodded, remembering my own first time managing a patient with complex co-morbidities, noting the slight tremor in her voice as she spoke. “We’ll do it together. You’ll lead the history; I’ll guide the plan.”

The patient was a middle-aged man with diabetes A1c of 10%, knees stiff from years of construction work, eyes tired in a way that went deeper than lack of sleep. He’d been in before, cycling through medications, labs, and referrals, but today he had one simple question: “Why does it feel like I’m doing everything, and nothing is changing?”

The resident shifted in her chair. She clicked her pen twice, then began reciting the script: lab results, adjustments to medications, a reminder about diet and exercise. Her words sounded correct, but the man’s eyes only grew duller, his shoulders slumping as if each phrase added weight instead of relief.

I felt the tug – the urge to step in, smooth the moment over, offer the polished blend of empathy and clinical advice that years of practice had made second nature. But I caught myself. I remembered being in her place, decades ago, stumbling through the space between a patient’s frustration and my own fear of failing them. My attending hadn’t rescued me then. They had let me sit in the discomfort until I realized that sometimes what mattered wasn’t my answer, but my listening.

So I stayed quiet.

The resident hesitated, sensing the silence stretch, and then something shifted. She leaned forward, softened her voice, and asked, “Can you tell me what feels hardest for you right now?”

The man looked up, surprised. His story tumbled out – not about A1cs or medication side effects, but about loneliness, missing work, the way cooking for one made meals feel meaningless. The resident nodded, asked gentle questions, let the pauses breathe. By the end of the visit, no miracle had occurred – his numbers hadn’t improved, his diagnoses hadn’t vanished – but his shoulders lifted, and there was a flicker of relief in his eyes. Someone had heard him.

After he left, the resident turned to me, cheeks flushed again, but this time with something different. “I almost lost him,” she admitted. “I didn’t know what to say.”

“You didn’t lose him,” I said. “You found the right question.”

That afternoon lingered long after the clinic emptied. I thought about the time I’d spent chasing efficiency, perfecting phrases, convincing myself that being a good doctor meant always knowing the right answer. But teaching has taught me otherwise. Sometimes the most important lessons come in the moments when we resist the urge to rescue and instead let silence guide our learners toward their own voice.

In that quiet moment, I realized: teaching was not a one-way street, but a circular, dynamic process. By guiding others, they were forced to articulate, to reflect, to confront their own limitations and hopes.

And in that silence, I remembered too: medicine isn’t just about solving problems. It’s about sitting in the spaces where problems can’t be solved quickly and learning to be present anyway.

MacGyver and Medicine: Get to Know Incoming STFM President Molly Clark, PhD

“It’s simply the way my mind works. I’ve always been drawn to thinking through, analyzing, and problem‑solving around things that are hard to understand.”

Molly Clark, PhD

Incoming STFM President Molly Clark, PhD, is a natural-born problem-solver. “I grew up wanting to write mysteries, become an attorney, or work as a spy. Maybe it was all the countless hours spent with my grandparents watching MacGyver, Matlock, or Murder, She Wrote, but something about that world drew me in. By the time I was 13 years old, I knew psychology was the profession for me, and I never wavered from that path.”

When asked what drew her to family medicine, Dr Clark explained, “I always enjoyed partnering with physicians—both as a student working in a health clinic and later as a resident. It was during my own residency I saw firsthand that strategic partnering led to making greater impacts in the field.”

The desire for collaboration in the name of greater impact is what ultimately brought Dr Clark to STFM. “STFM has the magic. The members and the STFM staff are among the most talented, dedicated, and generous people I have ever met. I always leave conferences with more colleagues, more ideas, and more passion.”

In fact, when it comes to the STFM member resources Dr Clark finds herself frequenting most often, she says the greatest benefit of STFM membership lies in accessing the collective wisdom of members themselves. “I think my most utilized STFM resources are my fellow members! Whether I’m reaching out for mentorship through Quick Consult or connecting on the STFM CONNECT platform, being able to tap into the expertise of so many who are doing remarkable work is so valuable.”

“There is a deep, neverending need for compassion and healing in this world,” Dr Clark went on to explain. “Every day I wake up is another opportunity to pay that forward.”

Pay forward she does, in her work as a professor and fellowship director at the University of Mississippi Medical Center Program in Jackson, MS. “I hope medical students and residents know they have a tremendous gift, but with this gift comes remarkable responsibility. So much time as a young person is spent second guessing decisions or waiting to feel ‘ready,’ and assuming everyone else has the answers. The truth is, you know more than you think, and you’re more capable than you give yourself credit for. Take time for discernment, and recognize that when you move forward with confidence, doors begin to open. Everything else—skills, clarity, courage—they tend to grow only after you begin. Challenge yourself to never forget the person in your care is someone’s someone and they are relying on you to hold their care in your hands.”

When asked about her plans for the STFM presidency, Dr Clark’s excitement to continue communal partnering for greater impact is palpable. “This is an incredible time of opportunity for family medicine and the next generation of family medicine educators. I look forward to collaborating with our members to ensure the mission and vision that shaped family medicine remain central as we continue to grow and evolve.”

“There are two pieces of wisdom that have stuck with me through the years,” Dr Clark explained when asked about the energy she brings to the presidency. “The first is the rearview mirror is smaller than the windshield for a reason—let the past inform you, but don’t let it obscure where you’re going. The second is a quote often attributed to Native Americans: ‘When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced. Live your life so that when you die, the world cries, and you rejoice.’ I hope to live a life of service that fulfills that sentiment.”

That desire to lead a life of service paired with her intrinsic, mystery-loving, problem-solving attitude extends beyond her work with the University of Mississippi Medical Center and with STFM. “I love being outdoors, in the country, and on a farm,” Dr Clark said. “I enjoy growing food for my family and learning a variety of skills I consider ‘lost arts.’ Whether it’s sewing, building furniture, or taking on a new DIY project, I’m always learning something new.”

Dr Clark will be sworn in as STFM President during the 2026 STFM Annual Spring Conference in New Orleans, LA. She has previously served as STFM member-at-large and on the Behavioralist and Family Educator Fellowship Steering Committee.

How to Do a Peer Review: Part One

by Sarina Schrager, MD, MS, Family Medicine Editor-in-Chief and by Jose Rodriguez, MD, FAAFP

As journal editors, we fundamentally believe in peer reviewing. Peer review helps make published papers higher quality. Objective experts and peers often see areas in a manuscript and research study that the authors and editors did not elucidate. Journals in general (and Family Medicine specifically) have a hard time finding peer reviewers. Doing a peer review takes time, is unpaid, and often feels like one more thing for already overwhelmed faculty. On behalf of the editorial team of Family Medicine, we are writing a series of blog posts about why we think you should sign up to be a peer reviewer (Family Medicine), how your expertise can contribute to the mission of the journal, and step-by-step instructions on how to construct a valuable peer review.

Why Was I Asked to Do This Review?
We often hear from early-career faculty that they don’t feel qualified to conduct peer reviews because they aren’t “experts.” Our Associate Editors aim to include a diversity of viewpoints in each manuscript. So, they may ask an expert to comment on the methodology or the statistics. But we also want input from our readers. Yes, you may not be a content area expert, but if you are a reader of the journal, your opinion is valuable. If you didn’t understand some of the paper, then other readers may also not understand. You should feel empowered to include comments to the editor about which aspects of the paper you feel qualified to comment on. I will often state, “I am not a statistician, but the numbers do not make sense to me.” If it doesn’t make sense to you, it may not make sense to others, so we want to know!

Getting Started
If you do not know where to start, go to the reviewer page on the journal’s website. There is a lot of material about how to do a peer review. Alternatively, you can ask a senior colleague or mentor for help. If you feel comfortable doing the review, then the first step is to read the paper. Most people recommend reading the paper through to the end the first time and not getting bogged down with comments or questions.

The first questions to ask yourself after you read the paper the first time are: 

1. Did this make sense?

2. Does it add to the field?

3. Does it matter?

4. Is it written well?

Often, we don’t notice if a paper is written well, but we do see if it is written in an unclear manner or if there are typos or grammatical errors. Those errors, while easily corrected, usually signal that the manuscript needs more work.

The Second Time Through  
After you have done a full read of the paper and answered some general questions to yourself, it is time to reread it. This time, when you read it, we want you to focus on all the details. We want reviewers to pay attention to the details of every section of the paper. The following two blogs will go section by section with descriptions of what to look for and how to provide feedback.

How to Organize Your Review
This is a matter of personal preference. Some reviewers organize their reviews by section. So, they start the review with comments on the title and continue with comments on the abstract, the introduction, the methods, the results, the discussion, the tables, the conclusion, and the references. Other reviewers prefer a more “free form” review, using bullet points or a numbered list to capture all the comments for each section. But, bottom line, we want reviewers to carefully assess all these sections of the paper. As editors, we must see in your review that you read the paper. A one-sentence review that is general, like “this was a great paper” or “this paper is not acceptable,” without comments on each section or other specific evaluative statements, is not helpful in the evaluation of a paper.

Tone and Goal of the Review
The overall goal of any peer review is to make the paper better. As such, we ask that you frame your feedback in a constructive manner and avoid disparaging comments. SS once had a reviewer say, “if the authors had only read the literature, they wouldn’t have made this mistake.” A better way of phrasing that same sentiment would be, “I suggest that the authors review these papers to get a different perspective on the subject.” These two phrases say essentially the same thing, but one is much more respectful. Remember, academic family medicine is a small community. Treat the authors as if they knew it was you writing the review, and keep your comments constructive and respectful.

The next two blogs will review how to evaluate specific sections of the paper in your review.