Putting the Heme Back in Heme-Onc: an Evaluation of the Redesigned Hematology Track within the Dana Farber/Mass General Brigham Hematology-Oncology Fellowship.

In 2019, the Dana Farber/Mass General Brigham Hematology-Oncology Fellowship redesigned the 6-month Hematology training track/curriculum required for all fellows seeking to double board in hematology and oncology. Responding to both national and local trends suggesting a future shortage of hematologists, the goal of the redesign was to create a new curriculum that would increase fellow interest in hematology, improve fellows' clinical knowledge of hematology, and serve as an example to other Hematology-Oncology programs across the country. The revised track has now been in place for four years, and, in this paper, the authors present the fellow experience with the first four years of the redesigned curriculum. Based on the number of fellows who chose to complete the new curriculum, as well as the fellow evaluations and performance on the Hematology In-Training Exam, the authors conclude that the new curriculum has successfully increased both fellow interest in and knowledge of hematology.

Scope of Burnout Among Young Gastroenterologists and Practical Solutions from Gastroenterology and Other Disciplines.

Burnout is a critical issue among physicians, including gastroenterologists. Up to 50% of gastroenterologists have reported symptoms of burnout in national assessments, leading to increased recognition of the burden of burnout among subspecialty societies. Particularly alarming in these assessments of burnout is the suggestion of increased rates of burnout among trainees and early career gastroenterologists. In this article, we describe the scope of burnout among young gastroenterologists and the risk factors that contribute. In addition, we will offer practical solutions to reduce burnout based on insights developed from multidisciplinary approaches, including relevant burnout literature, organizational approaches within academic medical centers, and training programs, as well as interviews with successful private practice gastroenterologists, and leaders in the fields of business and education.

Asking a Variety of Questions on Walk Rounds: a Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Morning walk rounds have lost some of their engagement while remaining a useful and valued practice. AIM: We created a pilot study to evaluate the impact on rounds of learning to asking a variety of different questions. SETTING: One-hour intervention sessions were voluntarily offered to members of the Department of Medicine and taught by an expert in the question, listen, and respond method. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included attendings and residents in Internal Medicine on medical teams. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Questionnaires were collected on six pre-intervention and six post-intervention days. Nine months later, an anonymous online survey was sent to participants asking about their use of a wider variety of questions. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Two hundred eight physicians (residents 175 (45.5%), attending physicians 25 (27.7%)) filled out pre-intervention surveys. One hundred eighty-one physicians (residents 155 (40.3%), attending physicians 18 (20%)) filled out post-intervention surveys. When survey responses from the attendings and residents on the medical teams were combined, post-intervention rounds were perceived as more worthwhile (1.99 pre-intervention and 1.55 post-intervention, [95% confidence interval 1.831-2.143]) (p < 0.001) and more engaging (1.68 pre-intervention and 1.30 post-intervention, [95% confidence interval 1.407-1.688]) (p < 0.001).Non-medical teams' survey responses did not change. Patient census data indicated no significant difference in the hospital's census on the pre- and post-intervention dates. Spontaneous suggestions for improving rounds came largely from the residents and included teaching points, clinical pearls, patient focus, more interactive, increased dedicated time for teaching, inclusive/multidisciplinary, questions, and evidence-based teaching. Of the participants who answered the online survey 9 months later, 75% (6/8) reported that they "actually asked a wider variety of types of questions." DISCUSSION: This pilot study indicates that the 1-h intervention of learning to ask a variety of different questions is associated with rounds that are rated as more worthwhile and engaging by the medical teams.

Delayed Workup of Rectal Bleeding in Adult Primary Care: Examining Process-of-Care Failures.

BACKGROUND: Although delayed colorectal cancer diagnoses figure prominently in medical malpractice claims, little is known about the quality of primary care clinicians' workup of rectal bleeding. METHODS: In this study, 438 patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for rectal bleeding, hemorrhoids, and blood in the stool at 10 Boston adult primary care practices. Following nurse chart abstraction, physician reviewers assessed the overall quality of care and key care processes. Subjects' characteristics and physician reviewers' processes-of-care assessments were tabulated, and logistic regression models were used to examine the association of process failures with overall quality and guideline concordance. RESULTS: Although reviewers judged the overall quality of care to be good or excellent in 337 (77%) of 438 cases, 312 (71%) patients experienced at least one process-of-care failure in the workup of rectal bleeding. Clinicians failed to obtain an adequate family history in 38% of cases, complete a pertinent physical exam in 23%, and order laboratory tests in 16%. Failure to order or perform tests, or to make follow-up plans were associated with increased odds of poor or fair care. Guideline concordance bore little relationship with quality judgments. Reviewers judged that 128 delays could have been reduced or prevented. CONCLUSION: Process-of-care failures among adult primary care patients with rectal bleeding were frequent and associated with fair or poor quality. Educating practitioners and creating systems to ensure adequate history taking, physical examination, and processes for ordering, performing, and interpreting diagnostic tests may improve performance.

A faculty development program integrating cross-cultural care into a gastrointestinal pathophysiology tutorial benefits students, tutors, and the course.

A specific faculty development program for tutors to teach cross-cultural care in a preclinical gastrointestinal pathophysiology course with weekly longitudinal followup sessions was designed in 2007 and conducted in the same manner over a 6-yr period. Anonymous student evaluations of how "frequently" the course and the tutor were actively teaching cross-cultural care were performed. The statements "This tutor actively teaches culturally competent care" and "Issues of culture and ethnicity were addressed" were significantly improved over baseline 2004 data. These increases were sustained over the 6-yr period. A tutor's overall rating as a teacher was moderately correlated with his/her "frequently" actively teaching cross-cultural care (r = 0.385, P < 0. 001). Course evaluation scores were excellent and put the course into the group of preclinical courses with the top ratings. Students in the Race in Curriculum Group asked that the program be expanded to other preclinical courses. In conclusion, from 2007 to 2012, a faculty development program for teaching cross-cultural care consistently increased the discussion of cross-cultural care in the tutorial and course over each year beginning with 2007 compared with the baseline year of 2004. Our data suggest that cross-cultural care can be effectively integrated into pathophysiology tutorials and helps improve students' satisfaction and tutors' ratings. Teaching cross-cultural care in a pathophysiology tutorial did not detract from the course's overall evaluations, which remained in the top group over the 6-yr period.

Disparities in evaluation of patients with rectal bleeding 40 years and older.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Rectal bleeding is associated with colorectal cancer. We characterized the evaluation of patients aged 40 years and older with rectal bleeding and identified characteristics associated with inadequate evaluation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of records of outpatient visits that contained reports of rectal bleeding for patients aged 40 years and older (N = 480). We studied whether patient characteristics affected whether or not they received a colonoscopy examination within 90 days of presentation with rectal bleeding. Patient characteristics included demographics; family history of colon cancer and polyps; and histories of screening colonoscopies, physical examinations, referrals to specialists at the index visit, and communication of laboratory results. Data were collected from medical records, and patient income levels were estimated based on Zip codes. RESULTS: Nearly half of the patients presenting with rectal bleeding received colonoscopies (48.1%); 81.7% received the procedure within 90 days. A history of a colonoscopy examination was more likely to be reported in white patients compared with Hispanic or Asian patients (P = .012 and P = .006, respectively), and in high-income compared with low-income patients (P = .022). A family history was more likely to be documented among patients with private insurance than those with Medicaid or Medicare (P = .004). A rectal examination was performed more often for patients who were white or Asian, male, and with high or middle incomes, compared with those who were black, Hispanic, female, or with low incomes (P = .027). White patients were more likely to have their laboratory results communicated to them than black patients (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Sex, race, ethnicity, patient income, and insurance status were associated with disparities in evaluation of rectal bleeding. There is a need to standardize the evaluation of patients with rectal bleeding.

Dual Coaching of Medical Clerkship Students' History Taking Skills by Volunteer Inpatients at the Bedside and Faculty Physicians on Zoom During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Purpose: Coaching is a well-described means of providing real-time, actionable feedback to learners. We aimed to determine whether dual coaching from faculty physicians and real inpatients led to an improvement in history-taking skills of clerkship medical students. Patients and Methods: Expert faculty physicians (on Zoom) directly observed 13 clerkship medical students as they obtained a history from 26 real, hospitalized inpatients (in person), after which students received immediate feedback from both the physician and the patient. De-identified audio-video recordings of all interviews were scored by independent judges using a previously validated clinical rating tool to assess for improvement in history-taking skills between the two interviews. Finally, all participants completed a survey with Likert scale questions and free-text prompts. Results: Students' history-taking skills - specifically in the domains of communication, medical knowledge and professional conduct - on the validated rating tool, as evaluated by the independent judges, did not significantly improve between their first and second patient interviews. However, students rated the dual coaching as overwhelmingly positive (average score of 1.43, with 1 being Excellent and 5 being Poor), with many appreciating the specificity and timeliness of the feedback. Patients also rated the experience very highly (average score of 1.23, with 1 being Excellent and 5 being Poor), noting that they gained new insights into medical training. Conclusion: Students value receiving immediate and specific feedback and real patients enjoy participating in the feedback process. Dual physician-patient coaching is a unique way to incorporate more direct observation into undergraduate medical education curricula.

Nurse-doctor co-teaching: A path towards interprofessional collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Nurse-doctor collaborations are essential for team-based patient care. Although there are increasing calls for interprofessional education, teaching and learning together is rare. In 2019, we designed a Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching pilot programme to provide an opportunity for nurses and doctors to co-teach junior doctors and nurses. We aimed to explore the experiences of the co-teachers and understand their perceptions of teaching together. The study was conducted through the lens of positioning theory. METHODS: We held an hour-long focus group discussion and follow-up one-on-one interviews with nurses and doctors who participated as co-teachers. Conversations were audio-video recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed. The Partners Institutional Review Board approved this study. RESULTS: Three nurses and four doctors participated in the focus group conversation, and four nurses and two doctors participated in individual interviews. Participant narratives provided insight into shifts in hospital culture that would be necessary to promote effective interprofessional learning and collaboration: (1) break down professional silos, (2) invite the nursing perspective, (3) flatten professional hierarchies, and (4) recognise nurses as clinical teachers. CONCLUSION: Nurses and doctors felt they shared a collegial and equal partnership as co-teachers. But this relationship was not typical of their daily clinical roles. Institutional barriers presented challenges to collaboration on the hospital floor and nursing participation in teaching. Successful interprofessional education may require culture and policy shifts that formally recognise nurses as valuable clinical teachers.

Agreement of Nurses' and Physicians' Attitudes on Collaboration During the Covid-19 Pandemic Using the Jefferson Scale of Attitudes Toward Physician-Nurse Collaboration.

Background: Collaboration between physicians and nurses has been shown to lead to better patient outcomes. However, studies have shown differing physicians' and nurses' responses to survey questions about physician-nurse collaboration. We surveyed physicians and nurses during the Covid-19 pandemic for their attitudes toward collaboration. Methods: In August 2021, during the Covid-19 pandemic, we surveyed physicians and nurses throughout an urban, academic teaching hospital over a consecutive twenty-day period using the validated Jefferson Scale of Attitudes Toward Physician-Nurse Collaboration. Anonymous surveys were obtained from nurses and physicians on duty at the hospital. Demographic data from each survey included gender, age, profession of nurse or physician, degree, and specialization. Results: Four hundred and fifteen (415) unique paper surveys were collected from 308 nurses and 107 physicians over the twenty-day period. Five nurses and two physicians declined to complete the survey (1.6%). Using the Independent t-test of Means, total score and sub-scores were analyzed. Physicians and nurses scored the paper surveys in a similar manner. No statistically significant differences between the scores of physicians and nurses were found for any of the fifteen Jefferson Scale of Attitudes Toward Physician-Nurse Collaboration questions, except for the youngest age group (20-29-year-old) having a significantly more positive response to doctors being the dominant authority on all health matters (p-value=0.011). Gender and nursing degree did not make a significant difference. Surgical Specialties (167), Medical Specialties (196), Intensive Care Unit (21), and the Emergency Department (43) survey responses did not differ significantly from each other. Conclusion: One and a half years into the Covid-19 pandemic, physicians and nurses at an urban, academic teaching hospital were in agreement with their responses on the validated Jefferson Scale of Attitudes Toward Physician-Nurse Collaboration. Our data may reflect a catalytic and positive effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on physician and nurse attitudes toward collaboration.

Impact of Extended Duty Hours on Perceptions of Care and Objective Patient Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: In 2017, interns were permitted to work continuously for up to 28 hours at a time, a reversal from the previously mandated 16-hour limit. Our objective was to evaluate perceptions of care and patient outcomes on an extended (28-hour) compared with a limited (16-hour) duty-hour system on identical interdisciplinary teams. METHODS: Sixty-two interns, 27 residents, 28 attendings, and 449 patients participated. Patients completed surveys assessing their satisfaction. Anonymous weekly surveys were obtained from interns, residents, and attendings evaluating perceptions of intern tiredness, overall satisfaction, and performance. Nursing surveys evaluated intern and medical team performance. Objective outcome measures, including intensive care unit transfers, length of stay, readmissions, mortality, and complications, were assessed through a retrospective, blinded chart review. RESULTS: Patients reported similar satisfaction in care. Extended duty-hour interns reported significantly decreased familiarity with their patients, decreased ability to conduct physical exams on new patients, increased tiredness, and decreased overall satisfaction. Residents overseeing extended-duty interns reported significantly decreased quality in intern presentations and overall quality of teaching, and increased perception of intern tiredness and increased incorrect orders. Attending physicians reported significantly improved quality of new patient presentations by extended duty-hour interns. No significant differences in patient objective outcome measures were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Extended intern duty hours do not affect patient's satisfaction with their care. Although interns in the extended duty-hour system reported significantly increased fatigue and decreased overall satisfaction and residents' perceived increases in incorrect intern orders in the extended duty-hour system, there were no detrimental effects on patient safety.

Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching: A Pilot Study of the Design, Development, and Implementation of Structured Interprofessional Co-Teaching Sessions.

INTRODUCTION: High levels of interprofessional collaboration are beneficial for patients and healthcare providers. Co-teaching may be one method for creating a collaborative environment. This pilot study designed, developed, and implemented Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching on an inpatient medicine service. METHODS: Ten Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching pairs designed 30-minute, structured co-teaching sessions with learning objectives, evidence-based content, interactive teaching strategies and a Take-Away of key content with the help of a coaching team. Each session was presented by a nurse and senior doctor to nurse and resident learners. Our assessment blueprint included: 1. Anonymous surveys assessing the overall rating of each session and 2. Pre- and post-anonymous surveys assessing measures of interprofessional collaboration and communication between nurses and residents before and after the series of ten co-teaching sessions. RESULTS: Data from ten post-session surveys included 121 of 156 participants (77.6%). Attendance at each session ranged from 13-19 participants with 8-17 participants completing a survey per session for an average of 12.1 surveys analyzed. All Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching sessions scored in the excellent range between 1.00 and 1.43 on a Likert scale (1 is excellent and 5 is poor). In response to the question "What did you like best?", interactive teaching strategies was the most frequent spontaneous answer. A significant correlation between the number of interactive teaching strategies and enjoyability of the session (p-value=0.01) was observed. Measures of interprofessional collaboration and communication did not change significantly in the pre-intervention compared to post-intervention period. CONCLUSION: We created a unique model of interprofessional co-teaching on an inpatient service. The overall excellent ratings of our interactive sessions indicate that Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching is a valued form of learning. Our structured format is adaptable to various medical settings and could be expanded to include additional allied health professionals. We plan further studies to assess if Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching improves measures of interprofessional collaboration.

Is Asking Questions on Rounds a Teachable Skill? A Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Attendings' Asking Questions.

BACKGROUND: Morning bedside rounds remain an essential part of Internal Medicine residency education, but rounds vary widely in terms of educational value and learner engagement. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of an intervention to increase the number and variety of questions asked by attendings at the bedside and assess its impact. DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of our intervention. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalist attendings on the general medicine service were invited to participate. Twelve hospitalists were randomized to the experimental group and ten hospitalists to the control group. INTERVENTION: A one-hour interactive session which teaches and models the method of asking questions using a non-medical case, followed by practice using role plays with medical cases. MAIN MEASURES: Our primary outcome was the number of questions asked by attendings during rounds. We used audio-video recordings of rounds evaluated by blinded reviewers to quantify the number of questions asked, and we also recorded the type of question and the person asked. We assessed whether learners found rounds worthwhile using anonymous surveys of residents, patients, and nurses. KEY RESULTS: Blinded analysis of the audio-video recordings demonstrated significantly more questions asked by attendings in the experimental group compared to the control group (mean number of questions 23.5 versus 10.8, p< 0.001) with significantly more questions asked of the residents (p<0.003). Residents rated morning bedside rounds with the experimental attendings as significantly more worthwhile compared to rounds with the control group attendings (p=0.009). CONCLUSION: Our study findings highlight the benefits of a one-hour intervention to teach faculty a method of asking questions during bedside rounds. This educational strategy had the positive outcome of including significantly more resident voices at the bedside. Residents who rounded with attendings in the experimental group were more likely to "strongly agree" that bedside rounds were "worthwhile".

Optimizing Multidisciplinary Simulation in Medical School for Larger Groups: Role Assignment by Lottery and Guided Learning.

PURPOSE: Medical school simulations are often designed for a limited number of students to maximize engagement and learning. To ensure that all first-year medical students who wished to join had an opportunity to participate, we designed a novel method for larger groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We devised a low technology "Orchestra Leader's" chart approach to prominently display students' roles, chosen by lottery. During simulation, the chart was mounted on an intravenous pole and served as a group organizational tool. A course instructor prompted students using the chart to accomplish the course objectives in a logical order. Real-life cardiologists and gastroenterologists provided the students with expert subspecialty consultation. We analyzed 125 anonymous student evaluation ratings for 3 years (2017-2019) with a range of 8 to 19 students per laboratory session. RESULTS: Our 2017-2019 larger group sessions were all rated as excellent (1.26, Mean, SD ±.510) on the Likert scale where 1.0 is excellent and 5.0 is poor. There were no statistically significant differences in overall ratings among the 2017, 2018 and 2019 sessions. The subspecialists were uniformly rated as excellent. Verbatim free-text responses demonstrated resounding student appreciation for the role assignment by lottery method. CONCLUSION: We designed a novel, "Orchestra Leader's" chart approach for accommodating larger groups in a multidisciplinary simulation laboratory using role assignment by lottery, roles depicted on an organizational chart, and expert instructor prompting. Our consistently excellent ratings suggest that our methods are useful for achieving well-rated larger group simulation laboratories.

Integration of racial, cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic factors into a gastrointestinal pathophysiology course.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Our study describes a faculty development program to encourage the integration of racial, cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic factors such as obesity, inability to pay for essential medications, the use of alternative medicine, dietary preferences, and alcoholism in a gastrointestinal pathophysiology course. METHODS: We designed a 1-hour faculty development session with longitudinal reinforcement of concepts. The session focused on showing the relevance of racial, ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic factors to gastrointestinal diseases, and encouraged tutors to take an active and pivotal role in discussion of these factors. The study outcome was student responses to course evaluation questions concerning the teaching of cultural and ethnic issues in the course as a whole and by individual tutorials in 2004 (pre-faculty development) and in 2006 to 2008 (post-faculty development). RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2008, the proportion of students reporting that "Issues of culture and ethnicity as they affect topics in this course were addressed" increased significantly (P = .000). From 2006 to 2008, compared with 2004, there was a significant increase in the number of tutors who "frequently" taught culturally competent care according to 60% or greater of their tutorial students (P = .003). The tutor's age, gender, prior tutor experience, rank, and specialty did not significantly impact results. CONCLUSIONS: An innovative faculty development session that encourages tutors to discuss racial, cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic issues relevant to both care of the whole patient and to the pathophysiology of illness is both effective and applicable to other preclinical and clinical courses.

Exposure to both radiation and chemotherapy increases the risk of Barrett's and multilayered epithelium.

The relationship between radiation and/or chemotherapy and the development of Barrett's and/or multilayered epithelium has not been investigated before. We ascertained a group of patients exposed to radiation and/or chemotherapy and an unexposed group to compare the prevalence rates of Barrett's epithelium and multilayered epithelium at the time of endoscopy in these two groups. Barrett's epithelium was found in ten of the 19 (53%) exposed patients, compared to eight of 38 (21%) unexposed subjects (P = 0.02). Six of 19 (32%) exposed patients had multilayered epithelium, compared to four of 38 (11%) unexposed subjects (P = 0.06). Twelve of the 19 exposed patients (63%) had either Barrett's or multilayered epithelium, in contrast to ten of 38 (26%) unexposed subjects (P = 0.01). Those with exposure to both chemotherapy and radiation had a significant increase in the risk for Barrett's and/or multilayered epithelium (P = 0.003). This study suggests a relationship between exposure to a combination of radiation and chemotherapy and the development of Barrett's and/or multilayered epithelium.

Teaching methods used by internal medicine residents on rounds: what works?

BACKGROUND: The specific teaching methods used by internal medicine residents on walk rounds are unknown. OBJECTIVES: 1) To characterize in real time the specific teaching methods used by internal medicine residents on rounds and 2) to identify attributes of successful resident teaching on rounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective mixed-methods study on inpatient medical services at a single academic medical center from September 2016 to January 2017. Participants were internal medicine residents (postgraduate year [PGY]-1, PGY-2, and PGY-3) and attending physicians. Teachers were PGY-2 and PGY-3 residents, and learners were PGY-1 residents. Residents' teaching on rounds was observed and characterized according to resident demographics, specific teaching methods, and length of time. Participants completed a survey with Likert scale and free-text questions. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Among 136 surveys across 28 separate teaching encounters, we noted that PGY-3 residents' teaching was rated significantly better than PGY-2 residents' teaching. Teaching lasting >1 minute was rated significantly better than teaching lasting <1 minute. Free-text responses emphasized the value of immediate clinical relevance, citing published evidence, conciseness, clarity, and pertinence to the patient. Our findings may help guide internal medicine residents aiming to teach better on rounds and inform further research into specific resident teaching methods.