Search

Many physician assistant (PA) students experience mistreatment in clinical learning environments, and accredited PA programs are required to define, publish, and make readily available policies and procedures for student reports of mistreatment. The purpose of this study is to describe the prevalence, content, and dissemination of program policies to address students' reports of mistreatment involving preceptors during supervised clinical experiences.To conduct a national policy analysis, the investigators included 10 new survey items in the 2019 Physician Assistant Education Association annual program survey. Deidentified data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics.The program response rate to the survey items was 99% (232). Approximately 76% of PA programs reported having a learner mistreatment policy. Policy content across programs varied widely, and several student reporting mechanisms were available. Program directors, clinical faculty, and institutional leadership were most likely to be involved in the management of reports. A majority programs actively assessed for mistreatment and most did so through clinical course evaluations and at the end of each clinical phase course. Most programs disseminated information about policy to faculty, students, and preceptors at least once a year.The descriptions of policy content, procedures, and dissemination increase educators' understanding of current policies across PA programs in the context of renewed efforts to write or revise policy that is specific to mistreatment. The authors discuss key policy priorities to define mistreatment, offer a range of confidential reporting mechanisms, review the management of reports, and consider how to optimize dissemination strategies.

Increasingly, medical school curricula seek to integrate the biomedical and clinical sciences. Inclusion of the basic sciences into the clinical curricula is less robust than including clinical content early in medical school. We describe inclusion of biomedical scientists on patient care rounds to increase the visibility of biomedical sciences, to nurture relationships between clinicians and biomedical scientists, and to identify additional opportunities for integration throughout medical school.

Purpose When the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) changed policies about medical student documentation, students with proper supervision may now document their history, physical exam, and medical decision-making in the electronic health record (EHR) for billable encounters. Since documentation is a core entrustable professional activity for medical students, the authors sought to evaluate student opportunities for documentation and feedback across and between clerkships. Method In February 2018, a multidisciplinary workgroup was formed to implement student documentation at Duke University Health System, including educating trainees and supervisors, tracking EHR usage, and enforcing CMS compliance. From August 2017 to August 2018, locations and types of student-involved services (student-faculty, or student-resident-faculty) were tracked using billing data from attestation statements. Student end-of-clerkship evaluations included opportunity for documentation and receipt of feedback. Since documentation was not allowed prior to August 2018 it was not possible to compare to prior student experiences. Results In the first half of the academic year, 6,972 patient encounters were billed as student-involved services, 52% (n = 3,612) in the inpatient setting and 47% (n = 3,257) in the outpatient setting. Most (74%) of the inpatient encounters also involved residents and most (92%) of outpatient encounters were student-teaching physician only.Approximately 90% of students indicated having had opportunity to document in the EHR across clerkships, except for procedure-based clerkships such as surgery and obstetrics. Receipt of feedback was present along with opportunity for documentation more than 85% of the time on services using evaluation and management coding. Most students (>90%) viewed their documentation as having a moderate or high impact on patient care. Conclusions Changes to student documentation were successfully implemented and adopted; changes met both compliance and education needs within the health system without resulting in potential abuses of student work for service.

Background: Bedside teaching is fundamental to clinical education, providing opportunities for teaching and assessment, but is rarely evaluated or compared across students’ experiences. Our purpose was to evaluate key differences in teaching practices between required clerkships.Methods: This is a mixed-methods observational study at Duke University designed to compare teaching concurrent with patient care on required medical student clerkships. A checklist to catalogue teaching during rounds was developed based on the literature of teaching best practices, including number of patients seen, time per patient, length and number of student presentations, observed opportunities for student assessment using entrustable professional activities (EPA), learning climate, and teaching by preceptors. Non-quantitative data about teaching practices were captured as field notes, then organized into best practices for faculty development.Results: Between January 2017 and June 2019, 42 separate teaching episodes were observed for 66 student presentations. All observations were analyzed qualitatively and 35 inpatient rounding observations were analyzed quantitatively. Most rounds (44.1%) were “at bedside,” 38.2% of discussions occurred in a conference room, and 17.6% used a combination. Time/patient ranged from a median of 4.5 minutes-15.0 minutes. Only the surgery clerkship taught at the bedside. No statistically significant differences in teaching skill or learning climate across clerkships were observed. Procedural services (Surgery, Obstetrics & Gynecology) had shorter median time/patient (5.0 min vs 14.6 min, p=0.002), shorter student presentations (2.0 min vs 4.0 min, p=0.017) and fewer interruptions (0 vs. 1, p=0.024) than non-procedural services (Neurology, Pediatrics, Internal Medicine, Psychiatry). Student discussion of management plans was observed more on procedural services while student skills with history, physical exams, and differential diagnosis were observed more on non-procedural services. Conclusions: Significant variation in teaching exists across clerkships; differences might be harnessed by distributing student responsibilities and EPA evaluations and across clerkships.

Introduction The AAMC has recognized the importance of effective teamwork and collaboration. One core Entrustable Professional Activity emphasizes creating a climate of mutual respect and trust and prioritizing team needs over personal needs, which leads to safe, timely, effective, efficient, and equitable patient care. Relationship conflicts, specifically, are associated with decreased productivity, complex information processing, and work satisfaction. Given the prevalence of conflict and its impact on health care workers, the lack of conflict resolution curricula in undergraduate medical education is surprising. We developed a curriculum formally introducing these skills and allowing practice in a simulated environment before students entered residency. Methods Fourth-year medical students completed a conflict resolution exercise in a mandatory transition-to-residency course. Students completed online prework including reflection on teamwork and information on conflict resolution styles, participated in a simulated conflict with a standardized patient acting as a nurse, and afterward completed a self-evaluation with video review by the students' assigned coach and feedback on the session. Results We collected complete responses from 108 students. We evaluated the curriculum for feasibility and acceptability by faculty and students. Most students agreed with faculty on their entrustment and milestone levels. Students found that the session prompted self-reflection and was a good review of conflict resolution. The standardized patient and faculty feedback was found to be the most useful by the students. Discussion We successfully implemented a simulated but realistic conflict resolution exercise. Students found the exercise helpful in their preparation for residency.

In the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT) of the National Institutes of Health Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, a conservative fluid protocol (FACTT Conservative) resulted in a lower cumulative fluid balance and better outcomes than a liberal fluid protocol (FACTT Liberal). Subsequent Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network studies used a simplified conservative fluid protocol (FACTT Lite). The objective of this study was to compare the performance of FACTT Lite, FACTT Conservative, and FACTT Liberal protocols.Retrospective comparison of FACTT Lite, FACTT Conservative, and FACTT Liberal. Primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance over 7 days. Secondary outcomes were 60-day adjusted mortality and ventilator-free days through day 28. Safety outcomes were prevalence of acute kidney injury and new shock.ICUs of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network participating hospitals.Five hundred three subjects managed with FACTT Conservative, 497 subjects managed with FACTT Liberal, and 1,124 subjects managed with FACTT Lite.Fluid management by protocol.Cumulative fluid balance was 1,918 ± 323 mL in FACTT Lite, -136 ± 491 mL in FACTT Conservative, and 6,992 ± 502 mL in FACTT Liberal (p0.001). Mortality was not different between groups (24% in FACTT Lite, 25% in FACTT Conservative and Liberal, p = 0.84). Ventilator-free days in FACTT Lite (14.9 ± 0.3) were equivalent to FACTT Conservative (14.6 ± 0.5) (p = 0.61) and greater than in FACTT Liberal (12.1 ± 0.5, p0.001 vs Lite). Acute kidney injury prevalence was 58% in FACTT Lite and 57% in FACTT Conservative (p = 0.72). Prevalence of new shock in FACTT Lite (9%) was lower than in FACTT Conservative (13%) (p = 0.007 vs Lite) and similar to FACTT Liberal (11%) (p = 0.18 vs Lite).FACTT Lite had a greater cumulative fluid balance than FACTT Conservative but had equivalent clinical and safety outcomes. FACTT Lite is an alternative to FACTT Conservative for fluid management in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Care in the hospital is hazardous. Harm in the hospital may prolong hospitalization, increase suffering, result in death, and increase costs of care. Although the interprofessional team is critical to eliminating hazards that may result in adverse events to patients, professional students' formal education may not prepare them adequately for this role.To determine if medical and nursing students can identify hazards of hospitalization that could result in harm to patients and to detect differences between professions in the types of hazards identified.Mixed-methods observational study of graduating nursing (n = 51) and medical (n = 93) students who completed two "Room of Horrors" simulations to identify patient safety hazards. Qualitative analysis was used to extract themes from students' written hazard descriptions. Fisher's exact test was used to determine differences in frequency of hazards identified between groups.Identification of hazards by students was low: 66% did not identify missing personal protective equipment for a patient on contact isolation, and 58% did not identify a medication administration error (medication hanging for a patient with similar name). Interprofessional differences existed in how hazards were identified: medical students noted that restraints were not indicated (73 vs. 2%, P 0.001), whereas nursing students noted that there was no order for the restraints (58.5 vs. 0%, P 0.0001). Nursing students discovered more issues with malfunctioning or incorrectly used equipment than medical students. Teams performed better than individuals, especially for hazards in the second simulation that were similar to those in the first: need to replace a central line with erythema (73% teams identified) versus need to replace a peripheral intravenous line (10% individuals, P 0.0001). Nevertheless, teams of students missed many intensive care unit-specific hazards: 54% failed to identify the presence of pressure ulcers; 85% did not notice high tidal volumes on the ventilator; and 90% did not identify the absence of missing spontaneous awakening/breathing trials and absent stress ulcer prophylaxis.Graduating nursing and medical students missed several hazards of hospitalization, especially those related to the intensive care unit. Orientation for residents and new nurses should include education on hospitalization hazards. Ideally, this orientation should be interprofessional to allow appreciation for each other's roles and responsibilities.

Despite the importance of self-directed learning (SDL) in the field of medicine, individuals are rarely taught how to perform SDL or receive feedback on it. Trainee skill in SDL is limited by difficulties with self-assessment and goal setting.Ninety-two graduating fourth-year medical students from Duke University School of Medicine completed an individualized learning plan (ILP) for a transition-to-residency Capstone course in spring 2015 to help foster their skills in SDL. Students completed the ILP after receiving a personalized report from a designated faculty coach detailing strengths and weaknesses on specific topics (e.g., pulmonary medicine) and clinical skills (e.g., generating a differential diagnosis). These were determined by their performance on 12 Capstone Problem Sets of the Week (CaPOWs) compared with their peers. Students used transitional-year milestones to self-assess their confidence in SDL.SDL was successfully implemented in a Capstone course through the development of required clinically oriented problem sets. Coaches provided guided feedback on students' performance to help them identify knowledge deficits. Students' self-assessment of their confidence in SDL increased following course completion. However, students often chose Capstone didactic sessions according to factors other than their CaPOW performance, including perceived relevance to planned specialty and session timing.Future Capstone curriculum changes may further enhance SDL skills of graduating students. Students will receive increased formative feedback on their CaPOW performance and be incentivized to attend sessions in areas of personal weakness.

Errors can happen in the most accomplished of systems, and healthcare providers need a better understanding of what effect these errors have on patients, what we must do to respond to errors, and what we can do to prevent them. The authors describe a medical error from the perspectives of both physician-patient and physician-friend, identifying key “lessons learned” and strategies for preventing similar errors from occurring in other healthcare settings.

In the last decade, the delivery of health care and the role of the physician have undergone radical change. With the ad vent of managed care and the tightening of restrictions by Medicare and insurance companies, physicians have been required to review, re-engineer, and revitalize their role. Increasing financial pressures at the hospital level have caused administrators to cut costs at all levels. It is imper ative that physicians take an active role in cost containment so that the quality of care is not sacrificed. Cost containment in vascular surgery is an urgent priority in health care. Copyright © 2000 by W.B. Saunders Company.

Objective To determine the impact of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandates for duty hours and competencies on instruction, evaluation, and patient care in intensive care units in the United States. Design A Web-based survey was designed to determine the current methods of teaching and evaluation in the intensive care unit, barriers to changing methods of teaching and evaluation, and the impact of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education regulations on teaching and patient care. Setting An anonymous Web-based survey was used; cumulative data were analyzed. Subjects A total of 125 of 380 program directors (33%) for pediatric critical care, pulmonary critical care, anesthesiology critical care, and surgery critical care fellowship programs completed questionnaires. Measurements and main results Bedside case-based teaching and standardized lectures are the most common methods of education in the intensive care unit. Patient safety and resident demands are two factors most likely to result in changes in instruction in the intensive care unit. Barriers to changes in education include clinical workload and lack of protected time and funding. Younger respondents viewed influences to change differently than older respondents. Respondents felt that neither education nor patient care had improved as a result of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandates. Conclusions Medical education teaching methods and assessment in the intensive care unit have changed little since the initiation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education regulations despite respondents' self-report of a willingness to change. Instead, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education regulations are thought to have negatively impacted resident attitudes, continuity of care, and even availability for teaching. These concerns, coupled with lack of protected time and funding, serve as barriers toward changes in critical care graduate medical education.

Background: Massive transfusion of blood products in trauma patients can acutely deplete the blood bank. It was hypothesized that, despite a large allocation of resources to trauma patients receiving more than 50 units of blood products in the first 24 hours, outcome data would support the continued practice of massive transfusion. Methods: A retrospective review of charts and registry data of trauma patients who received over 50 units of blood products in the first day was conducted for a 5-year period at a Level I trauma center. Patients were stratified into groups on the basis of the number of transfusions received. Results are expressed as mean ± SD. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify those risk factors determined in the first 24 hours after admission that were predictive of mortality. Physiologic differences between survivors and nonsurvivors were also examined. Results: Of 7,734 trauma patients admitted between July 1, 1995, and June 30, 2000, 44 (0.6%) received > 50 units of blood products in the first day. Overall mortality in these patients was 57%. There was no significant difference (p = 0.565, X 2 ) in mortality rate between patients who received > 75 units of blood products in the first day versus those who received 51 to 75 units. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified only one independent risk factor, base deficit > 12 mmol/L, associated with mortality. Base deficit > 12 mmol/L increases the risk of death by 5.5 times (p = 0.013; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-20.95). Neither the total blood product transfusion requirement in the first day nor the packed red blood cell transfusion amount in the first day were significant independent risk factors. Causes of the 25 deaths in this series included exsanguination in the operating room (n = I) or in the surgical intensive care unit (n = 12), multiple organ failure/ sepsis (n = 3), head injury (n = 3), respiratory failure (n = 2), cerebrovascular accident (n = 1), and other (n = 3). Of the survivors, 63% were discharged to home, 21% to rehabilitation, 11% to nursing home, and 5% to another acute care facility. Of the nonsurvivors, the mean Injury Severity Score was 43, 88% had a base deficit > 12 mmol/L, 68% had a Glasgow Coma Scale score 10. Conclusion: The 43% survival rate in trauma patients receiving > 50 units of blood products warrants continued aggressive transfusion therapy in the first 24 hours after admission.

Objective To describe the goals of sedative use in the intensive care unit and review the pharmacology of commonly used sedative drugs as well as to review pertinent publications in the literature concerning the comparative pharmacology of these drugs, with emphasis on outcomes related to sedation and comparative pharmacoeconomics. Data sources Publications in the scientific literature. Data extraction Computer search of the literature with selection of representative articles. Synthesis Proper choice and use of sedative drugs is based on knowledge of the pharmacology of commonly used agents and is an essential component of caring for patients in the intensive care unit. The large variability in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in the critically ill make it difficult to directly compare agents. Midazolam provides rapid and reliable amnesia, even when administered for low levels of sedation. Propofol may be useful when deeper levels of sedation and more rapid awakening are required. Lorazepam can be used for long-term sedation in more stable patients if rapidity of effect is not required. Further investigation in assessment of depth of sedation in the critically ill is needed. Continued study of costs, side effects, and appropriate dosing strategies of all sedative agents is needed to answer questions not sufficiently addressed in the current literature. Conclusion An individualized approach to sedation based on knowledge of drug pharmacology is needed because of confounding variables including concurrent patient illness, depth of sedation, and concomitant use of analgesic agents. (Crit Care Med 2000; 28:854-866)

Duke University Medical Center is a tertiary referral level one trauma hospital with a 16 bed surgical intensive care unit (SICU) averaging 1100 admissions per year. SICU patients include trauma, gastrointestinal, vascular, transplant, urology, orthopedics, otolaryngology and gynecology services. SICU admissions consist of postoperative, trauma via emergency room, intrahospital floor transfer and interhospital direct transfer. Transfers from outside institutions are often critically ill patients who have a significantly prolonged length of stay (LOS) and use vast amounts of resources. All SICU admissions were compared with interhospital transfers for the last 3 fiscal years. Interhospital transfers account for 5% of ICU admissions but 10% of total costs. These patients generate increased cost per case of over $11,000. The ICU LOS is significantly increased from 3.3 days for all patients to 7.5 for transfers. Likewise, the SICU mortality of these cases is significantly increased from 7.3% to 28.6% and hospital mortality from 9.6% to 33.5% We continually review our practices to dedicate our resources where they do the most good. We must continue to take salvageable, critically ill patients in transfer early in the course of their illness when appropriate SICU management can favorably influence outcome. In our experience, interhospital transfer of critically ill patients identifies a group with overall poor prognosis. There is a need for a means to evaluate and appropriately triage outside referrals in order to maximize clinical outcomes. Analysis of these transfers is underway to identify prospective predictors of potentially futile care to allow better utilization of available resources. Table 1

Intensive Care unit (ICU) management of critically ill patients often includes the requirement for tracheostomy and feeding access, most often a pecutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Although advances in ICU airway management include percutaneous tracheostomy, semi-open tracheostomy and conventional tracheostomy, the majority of critically ill surgical and injured patients still receive open tracheostomy in the Operating Room at Duke University Medical Center (DUMC). Although percutaneous tracheostomy is performed routinely in many medical ICU settings, in high risk surgical and trauma patients who often have unstable cervical spine injury and tissue edema, direct visualization of the cervical structures and trachea is imperative during tracheostomy. We have undertaken open tracheostomy and PEG in the ICU in selected patients as part of a collaborative, multidisciplinary ICU patient management strategy at DUMC. This initiative has been undertaken to address the risk of patient transport, the inappropriate use of OR time, and the cost to the patient as part of an effort to standardize and improve patient care.