Byline: Andrew S. Parsons, From the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the Department of Medical Sciences, Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, North Haven, Connecticut.; Karen M. Warburton; James R. Martindale; Ilene L. Rosenberg Abstract OBJECTIVES: Clinical skills instruction is a standard part of medical school curricula, but how institutions address learners who struggle in this area is less clear. Although recommendations for the remediation of clinical skills at an institutional level have been published, how these recommendations are being implemented on a national scale is unknown. In this descriptive study, we characterize current clinical skills remediation practices at US medical schools and US-accredited Caribbean medical schools. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of medical educators who work with struggling students. From March 24, 2020 to April 9, 2020, the Directors of Clinical Skills Remediation Working Group conducted an e-mail survey incorporating four aspects of remediation program design and function: identification, assessment, active remediation, and ongoing evaluation. RESULTS: In total, 92 individuals representing 45 institutions provided descriptive information about their respective remediation programs. The majority of respondents have a formal process of identifying (75%) and assessing (86%) students who are identified as struggling with clinical skills, but lack a standardized method of categorizing deficits. Fewer institutions have a standardized approach to active remediation and ongoing evaluation of struggling learners. Fifty-two percent of institutions provide training to faculty involved in the remediation process. CONCLUSIONS: Although most institutions are able to identify struggling students, they lack a standardized approach to intervene. Remediation effectiveness is limited by a lack of student buy-in and institutional time, expertise, and resources. These findings highlight the need for more formalized structure and standardization in remediation program design and implementation.