How Academic Medical Centers Can Navigate the Pandemic and Its Aftermath: Solutions for 3 Major Issues.

The COVID-19 crisis has seriously affected academic medical centers (AMCs) on multiple levels. Combined with many trends that were already under way pre pandemic, the current situation has generated significant disruption and underscored the need for change within and across AMCs. In this article, the authors explore some of the major issues and propose actionable solutions in 3 areas of concentration. First, the impact on medical students is considered, particularly the trade-offs associated with online learning and the need to place greater pedagogical emphasis on virtual care delivery and other skills that will be increasingly in demand. Solutions described include greater utilization of technology, building more public health knowledge into the curriculum, and partnering with a wide range of academic disciplines. Second, leadership recruiting, vital to long-term success for AMCs, has been complicated by the crisis. Pressures discussed include adapting to the dynamics of competitive physician labor markets as well as attracting candidates with the skill sets to meet the requirements of a shifting AMC leadership landscape. Solutions proposed in this domain include making search processes more focused and streamlined, prioritizing creativity and flexibility as core management capabilities to be sought, and enhancing efforts with assistance from outside advisors. Finally, attention is devoted to the severe financial impact wrought by the pandemic, creating challenges whose resolution is central to planning future AMC directions. Specific challenges include recovery of lost clinical revenue and cash flow, determining how to deal with research funding, and the precarious economic balancing act engendered by the need to continue distance education. A full embrace of telehealth, collaborative policy-making among the many AMC constituencies, and committing fully to being in the vanguard of the transition to value-based care form the solution set offered.

Management of Patients With Fever and Neutropenia Through the Arc of Time: A Narrative Review.

The association between fever and neutropenia and the risk for life-threatening infections in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy has been known for 50 years. Indeed, infectious complications have been a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. This review chronicles the progress in defining and developing approaches to the management of fever and neutropenia through observational and controlled clinical trials done by single institutions, as well as by national and international collaborative groups. The resultant data have led to recommendations and guidelines from professional societies and frame the current principles of management. Recommendations include those guiding new treatment options (from monotherapy to oral antibiotic therapy) and use of prophylactic antimicrobial regimens in high-risk patients. Of note, risk factors have changed with the advent of hematopoietic cytokines (especially granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) in shortening the duration of neutropenia, as well as with the discovery of more targeted cancer treatments that do not result in cytotoxicity, although these are still the exception. Most guiding principles that were developed decades ago-about when to begin empirical treatment after a neutropenic patient becomes febrile, whether and how to modify the initial treatment regimen (especially in patients with protracted neutropenia), and how long to continue antimicrobial therapy-are still used today. This review describes how the treatment principles related to the management of fever and neutropenia have responded to changes in the patients at risk, the microbes responsible, and the tools for their treatment, while still being sustained over the arc of time.

Thoughts about Dying in America: Enhancing the impact of one's life journey and legacy by also planning for the end of life.

This Perspective offers a summary of the recommendations in the Institute of Medicine report Dying in America How we die is a deeply personal issue that each of us will face. However, the approach to end-of-life (EOL) care in the United States needs improvement. Too frequently, healthcare delivery is uncoordinated and has many providers who are not adequately prepared to have meaningful conversations about EOL planning. This is amplified by payment systems and policies that create impediments, misunderstanding, and sometimes misinformation. Dying in America made five recommendations to improve quality and honor individual preferences near the EOL beginning with making conversations with providers and families something that occurs during various phases of the life cycle and not just when one is facing serious illness or possible EOL. It was recommended (i) that public and private payers and care delivery organizations cover the provision of comprehensive care that is accessible and available to individuals on a 24/7 schedule; (ii) that professional societies and other entities establish standards for clinician patient communication and advance care planning and that payers and care delivery organizations adopt them; (iii) that educational institutions, credentialing bodies, accrediting boards, state regulatory agencies, and care delivery organizations establish palliative care training, certification, and/or licensure requirements; (iv) that public and private payers and care delivery organizations integrate the financing of health and social services; and (v) that public and private organizations should engage their constituents and provide fact-based information to encourage advance care planning and informed choice.

The gender gap in academic medicine: comparing results from a multifaceted intervention for stanford faculty to peer and national cohorts.

PURPOSE: To assess whether the proportion of women faculty, especially at the full professor rank, increased from 2004 to 2010 at Stanford University School of Medicine after a multifaceted intervention. METHOD: The authors surveyed gender composition and faculty satisfaction five to seven years after initiating a multifaceted intervention to expand recruitment and development of women faculty. The authors assessed pre/post relative change and rates of increase in women faculty at each rank, and faculty satisfaction; and differences in pre/post change and estimated rate of increase between Stanford and comparator cohorts (nationally and at peer institutions). RESULTS: Post intervention, women faculty increased by 74% (234 to 408), with assistant, associate, and full professors increasing by 66% (108 to 179), 87% (74 to 138), and 75% (52 to 91), respectively. Nationally and at peer institutions, women faculty increased by about 30% (30,230 to 39,200 and 4,370 to 5,754, respectively), with lower percentages at each rank compared with Stanford. Estimated difference (95% CI) in annual rate of increase was larger for Stanford versus the national cohort: combined ranks 0.36 (0.17 to 0.56), P = .001; full professor 0.40 (0.18 to 0.62), P = .001; and versus the peer cohort: combined ranks 0.29 (0.07 to 0.51), P = .02; full professor 0.37 (0.14 to 0.60), P = .003. Stanford women faculty satisfaction increased from 48% (2003) to 71% (2008). CONCLUSIONS: Increased satisfaction and proportion of women faculty, especially full professors, suggest that the intervention may ameliorate the gender gap in academic medicine.

Commentary: to genotype or not to genotype? Addressing the debate through the development of a genomics and personalized medicine curriculum.

As technologic innovation helps broaden and refine our knowledge base of genetic associations, a growing interest in translating these genetic discoveries to clinically useful laboratory tests has given rise to the potential of personalized medicine. To fully realize this potential, medical schools must educate trainees on genetic and genomic testing in clinical settings. An emerging debate in academic medical centers is not about the need for this education but, rather, the most effective educational models that should be deployed. At Stanford School of Medicine, several proposals to offer personal genotyping in the educational curriculum argued that learning genetics and the attendant cutting-edge molecular techniques would be more powerful and sustained if students were applying their knowledge to their personal genotypes. Given the complex ethical, legal, and social issues involved in implementing such a program, a schoolwide task force was formed to evaluate the risks and benefits of offering personal genotyping to students and residents. In this commentary, the authors discuss the salient issues raised by the task force and describe the safeguards adopted into the ultimate approval and implementation of the course, which included the opportunity for students to analyze their own genomes.

The changing face of febrile neutropenia-from monotherapy to moulds to mucositis. Where do we go from here?

The initiation of monotherapy with a third- or fourth-generation cephalosporin, or with a carbapenem antibiotic, is now established medical practice for the neutropenic patient who becomes febrile. However, when the duration of neutropenia is prolonged (generally more than a week), additions to, or modifications of, the initial antibiotic regimen are necessary based on the evolving clinical and microbiological course of the patient. The rationale for these modifications of the initial therapy in high-risk neutropenic patients is reviewed along with the prospects for reducing the risk status of the neutropenic patient by bolstering or improving the host's immunological system and/or the time to haematological recovery.

Case study: the Stanford University School of Medicine and its teaching hospitals.

There is wide variation in the governance and organization of academic health centers (AHCs), often prompted by or associated with changes in leadership. Changes at AHCs are influenced by institutional priorities, economic factors, competing needs, and the personality and performance of leaders. No organizational model has uniform applicability, and it is important for each AHC to learn what works or does not on the basis of its experiences. This case study of the Stanford University School of Medicine and its teaching hospitals--which constitute Stanford's AHC, the Stanford University Medical Center--reflects responses to the consequences of a failed merger of the teaching hospitals and related clinical enterprises with those of the University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine that required a new definition of institutional priorities and directions. These were shaped by a strategic plan that helped define goals and objectives in education, research, patient care, and the necessary financial and administrative underpinnings needed. A governance model was created that made the medical school and its two major affiliated teaching hospitals partners; this arrangement requires collaboration and coordination that is highly dependent on the shared objectives of the institutional leaders involved. The case study provides the background factors and issues that led to these changes, how they were envisioned and implemented, the current status and challenges, and some lessons learned. Although the current model is working, future changes may be needed to respond to internal and external forces and changes in leadership.