Teaching health care innovation to medical students.

BACKGROUND: To identify the efficacy of a design thinking and health care innovation course in improving medical students' self-awareness regarding design thinking metrics. METHODS: The assessment of the design thinking mindset was measured pre- and post-course. The target population included medical students at our institution participating in the Innovation & Design Thinking (IDT) course. A paired t-test was used to compare scores from before and after taking the course with p-value set at <0.05. RESULTS: Students reported significantly improvements in the domains of tolerance for uncertainty, embracing risk, human-centeredness, mindfulness and awareness of process, team knowledge, experimentation, transforming in something tangible, abductive thinking, envisioning new things, and creative confidence (p < 0.05). The greatest improvements were in tolerance for uncertainty (0.48), mindfulness and awareness of process (0.47), and creative confidence (0.40). No significant change was observed in constructs such as empathy, problem reframing, team member's interaction, multidisciplinary collaborative teams, openness to diversity, being learning oriented, learning from mistakes, bias for action, critical thinking, desire to make a difference, and optimism to have an impact. DISCUSSION: Instructing medical students on the principles of design thinking and their applications in health care improves their self-awareness regarding the design thinking mindset.

Outcomes of acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19 patients compared to the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) often leads to mortality. Outcomes of patients with COVID-19-related ARDS compared to ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 is not well characterized. AREAS COVERED: We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and MedRxiv 11/1/2019 to 3/1/2021, including studies comparing outcomes in COVID-19-related ARDS (COVID-19 group) and ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 (ARDS group). Outcomes investigated were duration of mechanical ventilation-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) length-of-stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and mortality. Random effects models were fit for each outcome measure. Effect sizes were reported as pooled median differences of medians (MDMs), mean differences (MDs), or odds ratios (ORs). EXPERT OPINION: Ten studies with 2,281 patients met inclusion criteria (COVID-19: 861 [37.7%], ARDS: 1420 [62.3%]). There were no significant differences between the COVID-19 and ARDS groups for median number of mechanical ventilator-free days (MDM: -7.0 [95% CI: -14.8; 0.7], p = 0.075), ICU LOS (MD: 3.1 [95% CI: -5.9; 12.1], p = 0.501), hospital LOS (MD: 2.5 [95% CI: -5.6; 10.7], p = 0.542), or all-cause mortality (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 0.78; 1.99], p = 0.361). Compared to the general ARDS population, results did not suggest worse outcomes in COVID-19-related ARDS.