A single institution, cross-sectional study on medical student preferences for collaborators in interprofessional education.

BACKGROUND: While the importance of interprofessional education in medical training has been well-established, no specific framework has been used uniformly or shown to be most effective in the creation of interprofessional education (IPE) sessions. Further, prior studies have demonstrated that students have preferences for the design of these experiences. In this study, we sought to understand medical student preference for interprofessional teammates and motivations for this choice. METHODS: In this single-institution, cross-sectional analysis of the Duke IPE Clinic, participating students from September 2019-March 2020 completed a voluntary electronic survey that queried preferences for which health professions students (Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT), Accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing (ABSN), Nurse Practitioner (NP), Pharmacy, and Physician's Associate (PA)) they would want to work with, and the motivating reason. Preferences and reasons were compared between first-year medical students (MS1s) and third- and fourth-year medical students (MS3s/MS4s). RESULTS: In total, 132 students participated. We found that MS1s most preferred interprofessional teammates with a more similar area of study (PA, NP), whereas MS3s/MS4s most preferred classmates with a less similar area of study (pharmacy, DPT, ABSN). MS1 students frequently selected their first-choice preference because the profession seemed most similar, while MS3/MS4 students often selected their first-choice preference because the profession seemed most different. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students earlier in training have more interest in working with professions they view as similar whereas senior students prefer to work with professions they view as more different. This information is important for designing educational IPE opportunities.

Creating a win-win for the health system and health Profession's education: a direct observation clinical experience with feedback iN real-time (DOCENT) for low acuity patients in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Clinical education across the professions is challenged by a lack of recognition for faculty and pressure for patient throughput and revenue generation. These pressures may reduce direct observation of patient care provided by students, a requirement for both billing student-involved services and assessing competence. These same pressures may also limit opportunities for interprofessional education and collaboration. METHODS: An interprofessional group of faculty collaborated in a sequential quality improvement project to identify the best patients and physical location for a student teaching clinic. Patient chief complaint, use of resources, length of stay, estimated severity of illness and student participation and evaluation of the clinic was tracked. RESULTS: Clinic Optimization and Patient Care: Five hundred and thirty-two emergency department (ED) patients were seen in the first 19 months of the clinic. A clinic located near the ED allowed for patients with higher emergency severity index and greater utilization of imaging. Patients had similar or lower lengths of stay and higher satisfaction than patients who remained in the ED (p < 0.0001). In the second clinic location, from October 2016-June 2019, 644 patients were seen with a total of 667 concerns; the most common concern was musculoskeletal (50.1%). Student Interprofessional Experience: A total of 991 students participated in the clinic: 68.3% (n = 677) medical students, 10.1% (n = 100) physician assistant students, 9.7% (n = 96) undergraduate nursing students, 9.1% (n = 90) physical therapy students, and 2.8% (n = 28) nurse practitioner students. The majority (74.5%, n = 738) of student participants worked with students from other professions. More than 90% of students reported that faculty set a positive learning environment respectful of students. However, 20% of students reported that faculty could improve provision of constructive feedback. Direct Observation: Direct observation of core entrustable professional activities for medical students was possible. Senior medical students were more likely to be observed generating a differential diagnosis or management plan than first year medical students. CONCLUSIONS: Creation of a DOCENT clinic in the emergency department provided opportunities for interprofessional education and observation of student clinical skills, enriching student experience without compromising patient care.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Workup of Noncerebral Systemic Arterial Embolic Source.

Noncerebral systemic arterial embolism, which can originate from cardiac and noncardiac sources, is an important cause of patient morbidity and mortality. When an embolic source dislodges, the resulting embolus can occlude a variety of peripheral and visceral arteries causing ischemia. Characteristic locations for noncerebral arterial occlusion include the upper extremities, abdominal viscera, and lower extremities. Ischemia in these regions can progress to tissue infarction resulting in limb amputation, bowel resection, or nephrectomy. Determining the source of arterial embolism is essential in order to direct treatment decisions. This document reviews the appropriateness category of various imaging procedures available to determine the source of the arterial embolism. The variants included in this document are known arterial occlusion in the upper extremity, lower extremity, mesentery, kidneys, and multiorgan distribution that are suspected to be of embolic etiology. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm or Dissection: Treatment Planning and Follow-Up.

As the incidence of thoracoabdominal aortic pathology (aneurysm and dissection) rises and the complexity of endovascular and surgical treatment options increases, imaging follow-up of patients remains crucial. Patients with thoracoabdominal aortic pathology without intervention should be monitored carefully for changes in aortic size or morphology that could portend rupture or other complication. Patients who are post endovascular or open surgical aortic repair should undergo follow-up imaging to evaluate for complications, endoleak, or recurrent pathology. Considering the quality of diagnostic data, CT angiography and MR angiography are the preferred imaging modalities for follow-up of thoracoabdominal aortic pathology for most patients. The extent of thoracoabdominal aortic pathology and its potential complications involve multiple regions of the body requiring imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in most patients. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Pulsatile Abdominal Mass, Suspected Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: 2023 Update.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is defined as abnormal dilation of the infrarenal abdominal aortic diameter to 3.0 cm or greater. The natural history of AAA consists of progressive expansion and potential rupture. Although most AAAs are clinically silent, a pulsatile abdominal mass identified on physical examination may indicate the presence of an AAA. When an AAA is suspected, an imaging study is essential to confirm the diagnosis. This document reviews the relative appropriateness of various imaging procedures for the initial evaluation of suspected AAA. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Lessons Learned from the Development and Implementation of Virtual and Telehealth Interprofessional Educational Clinics.

PURPOSE: The Interprofessional Educational (IPE) Clinic at Duke is a clinical experience that has allowed an interprofessional team, including health professions students, to care for patients in the emergency department (ED) since 2015. COVID-19 presented fundamental challenges to the structure of this experience, such as student restrictions on attending clinical experiences and limitations on the number of providers in a patient room, which necessitated a transition from face-to-face encounters to virtual ones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a result, two virtual experiences were implemented; one was based in the ED with in-person faculty and patients with virtual learners and one staffed by ambulatory providers engaging in telehealth clinics. These experiences sought to provide an interprofessional clinical experience for students while following appropriate safety guidelines. Surveys were distributed to students post-clinic to gather student demographics and their feedback regarding the experience. Additionally, faculty preceptors provided insight into the experience, especially regarding logistics and infrastructure. RESULTS: The virtual experiences successfully allowed teams of students to participate remotely in aspects of care including history taking, physical assessments, and medical decision-making. Additionally, the virtual care team structure allowed for senior students to mentor junior learners and for faculty members to provide point of care feedback. Students gained practical experience in telehealth that included logistics and challenges of providing virtual care and appreciating how technological barriers such as lack of access to internet-connected devices can be a source of disparity. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic required the reconfiguration of an in-person clinical experience to a virtual experience and this pivot was well received by students and faculty. The lessons learned can be generalizable to other professional schools who may be seeking to develop an interprofessional clinical experience and are exploring telehealth options.