Developing a Transitions of Care Elective for Medical Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond.

OBJECTIVES: Health care in the United States is costly, fragmented, and often ineffective. Transitions of care (TOC), particularly from the inpatient to the outpatient setting, is an especially complicated time and one that is potentially fraught with errors that contribute to negative outcomes. The coronavirus 2019 pandemic exacerbated many of these challenges. In particular, vulnerable patient populations have experienced more barriers to successful care transitions. Effective care transitions should include interprofessional teamwork, robust patient education, and seamless communication among the various healthcare team members. Increasingly, medical schools are working toward graduating systems-ready physicians who demonstrate competency in the health system sciences and are able to operate effectively within the healthcare system, including being able to navigate complex transitions of care issues. Undergraduate medical education, however, continues to provide experiential learning in the traditional silos of inpatient versus outpatient medicine, so that learners do not have the opportunity to directly participate in transitions of care. Although transitions of care is a pivotal part of patient care, it is rarely taught at the undergraduate level, and when it is, it is typically relegated to the classroom setting. METHODS: We used the disruption of the coronavirus 2019 pandemic to develop a TOC elective. The aim was to fulfill an acute educational need and to develop competencies around care transitions for students while concurrently providing support for patient care and teamwork. The elective was offered to second-, third- and fourth-year medical students. Our educational innovation was initiated within our safety-net hospital where we care for a high percentage of uninsured patients, with a high language discordance. In addition, our city has multiple care systems without a single or connected electronic health record system, further complicating patient care transitions. The work of the TOC elective crossed inpatient and outpatient silos, with close collaboration with our local federally qualified health centers. This remotely conducted elective includes three main pillars: participation in team activities, including virtual participation in interdisciplinary rounds and care coordination; discharge planning; and communication, including goals of care and end of life communication. RESULTS: Medical students successfully integrated into team structures to directly counsel families, facilitate goals of care conversations, and engage a multidisciplinary team for discharge planning. Students found this experience valuable in their reflections. In addition, there was a value-added component from a patient care and teamwork perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Participation of students in TOC is a valuable educational experience and contributes a value-added component to patient care and interprofessional teamwork. Moreover, an appreciation of the failures of the current system is pivotal as learners start to reimagine, explore, and design improved patient-centered systems in the future.

Global health on the front lines: an innovative medical student elective combining education and service during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: An innovative medical student elective combined student-directed, faculty-supported online learning with COVID-19 response field placements. This study evaluated students' experience in the course, the curriculum content and format, and its short-term impact on students' knowledge and attitudes around COVID-19. METHODS: Students responded to discussion board prompts throughout the course and submitted pre-/post-course reflections. Pre-/post-course questionnaires assessed pandemic knowledge and attitudes using 4-point Likert scales. Authors collected aggregate data on enrollment, discussion posts, field placements, and scholarly work resulting from course activities. After the elective, authors conducted a focus group with a convenience sample of 6 participants. Institutional elective evaluation data was included in analysis. Authors analyzed questionnaire data with summary statistics and paired t-tests comparing knowledge and attitudes before and after the elective. Reflection pieces, discussion posts, and focus group data were analyzed using content analysis with a phenomenological approach. RESULTS: Twenty-seven students enrolled. Each student posted an average of 2.4 original discussion posts and 3.1 responses. Mean knowledge score increased from 43.8 to 60.8% (p <  0.001) between pre- and post-course questionnaires. Knowledge self-assessment also increased (2.4 vs. 3.5 on Likert scale, p <  0.0001), and students reported increased engagement in the pandemic response (2.7 vs. 3.6, p <  0.0001). Students reported increased fluency in discussing the pandemic and increased appreciation for the field of public health. There was no difference in students' level of anxiety about the pandemic after course participation (3.0 vs. 3.1, p = 0.53). Twelve students (44.4%) completed the institutional evaluation. All rated the course "very good" or "excellent." Students favorably reviewed the field placements, suggested readings, self-directed research, and learning from peers. They suggested more clearly defined expectations and improved balance between volunteer and educational hours. CONCLUSIONS: The elective was well-received by students, achieved stated objectives, and garnered public attention. Course leadership should monitor students' time commitment closely in service-learning settings to ensure appropriate balance of service and education. Student engagement in a disaster response is insufficient to address anxiety related to the disaster; future course iterations should include a focus on self-care during times of crisis. This educational innovation could serve as a model for medical schools globally.

Perioperative pain management and outcomes in patients who -discontinued or continued pre-existing buprenorphine therapy.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared opioid utilization and clinical outcomes in surgical patients receiving maintenance buprenorphine therapy who discontinued versus those who continued buprenorphine treatment perioperatively. Lack of high-quality evidence, conflicting results in previous studies, and the possible need for reinduction after discontinuing therapy present clinicians with the complicated dilemma of choosing the best strategy to control post-operative pain in patients receiving buprenorphine. DESIGN: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized patients between January 1, 2017 and December 12, 2019 who underwent any type of surgery, had a documentation of an outpatient buprenorphine prescription or inpatient order, and received buprenorphine for 5 or more days prior to the procedure were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary objective was to compare mean 24-hour morphine milligram equivalent (MME) utilization post-operatively between patients who discontinued buprenorphine preoperatively versus those who continued therapy throughout the perioperative period. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients met the inclusion criteria for this study. Of these, 42 patients were continued on buprenorphine through surgery, while nine patients had a documentation of discontinuation preoperatively. The 24-hour post-operative MME utilization (interquartile range) was 58.8 (18-100.8) in patients who continued therapy through surgery versus 152.6 (114.5-236) in patients who discontinued therapy preoperatively (p = 0.005). There were no significant differences in post-operative pain scores or length of stay between groups. CONCLUSION: Post-operative opioid use was significantly lower in patients who continued buprenorphine compared with those who discontinued buprenorphine preoperatively.

Head computed tomography findings predict short-term stroke risk after transient ischemic attack.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Current guidelines recommend the use of head CT in the evaluation of patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA), but data supporting its value are sparse. METHODS: Patients who presented to 1 of 16 emergency departments of a large Northern California health maintenance organization and received a diagnosis of TIA from November 1997 through February 1998 were enrolled and followed up for 90 days. Clinical, demographic, and outcome data were obtained from computerized databases and medical records. Physicians blinded to patient characteristics and outcomes abstracted head CT findings from radiology reports. Abstracted findings included evidence of old or new infarct, periventricular white-matter disease, cerebral atrophy, cerebral vascular calcification, and nonischemic lesions. RESULTS: Head CT was performed in 67% of eligible patients (n=322) diagnosed with TIA. Evidence of a new infarct was seen on head CT in 13 patients (4%). A nonischemic cause of TIA symptoms was found in 4 patients (1.2%). During follow-up, 10.9% of TIA patients experienced subsequent stroke. After adjustment for confounders, risk for stroke during follow-up was significantly higher in those with a new infarct on head CT compared with others with TIA (odds ratio, 4.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 14.14; P=0.028). Old infarction, periventricular white-matter disease, cerebral atrophy, and cerebral vascular calcification were not predictors of subsequent risk of stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of a new infarct on head CT in patients presenting with TIA is associated with increased short-term risk for stroke. Head CT appears to have prognostic value in patients with TIA and, for this reason alone, may be justified in their evaluation.