Engaging Retired Physicians as Educators: Motivations and Experiences of Participants in a Novel Educational Program.

PURPOSE: Physician retirement has important impacts on medical learners as well as retiring physicians themselves. Retiring physicians take with them a wealth of knowledge, wisdom, and expertise and can feel a loss of identity, lack of fulfillment, and reduced social connectedness after leaving the institution. To address this, a novel educational program providing retired physicians with renewed educational roles was implemented in 2018 within a university-associated pediatric department. This study sought to explore the retired physicians' experiences in this new intergenerational program, including their motivations to reengage as educators after retirement. METHOD: The authors designed this study using qualitative description. Semistructured interviews were conducted in the Department of Pediatrics of McGill University in 2019 with retired physicians who participated in the educational program's inaugural year. Role theory and psychosocial development theory were used to design the interview guide and inform the thematic analysis. Iterative analysis of the interview transcripts was deductive and inductive. RESULTS: Of the 8 retired physicians who participated in the program's first cohort, 7 participated in this study. Analysis of the data yielded 4 main themes: a challenging shift to retirement, a desire for reengagement after retirement, role dissonance, and gaining by giving. The retired physicians were motivated to engage as educators. Although they experienced some discomfort in their new nonclinical roles, they described their experiences as fulfilling, with benefits such as intellectual stimulation, social connectedness, and a sense of purpose. CONCLUSIONS: Retired physicians' motivations to reengage academically and their experiences contributing to educational activities in this program highlight the importance of supporting physicians during the transition to retirement and establishing formal programs to engage retired physicians as educators.

An Innovative Model of Pediatric Emergency Department Mental Health Care: Protocol for a Multicenter Type 1 Effectiveness-Implementation Cluster Randomized Trial.

Over the past decade, visits to American and Canadian emergency departments (EDs) for child and youth mental health care have increased substantially.1,2 Acute mental health crises can occur as a result of a variety of concerns, including those that are life threatening (eg, suicide attempts), pose safety concerns (eg, suicidal intentions, aggressive behaviors, alcohol and other drug use), and are physically distressing to the child or youth (eg, panic attacks). ED health care providers play a vital role in assessing the safety and well-being of the child or youth and referring them to services for ongoing care.3,4 During the ED visit, assessment and care should pinpoint risks, inform treatment, and consider family needs and preferences as part of a patient-centered approach. Yet, this approach to care is not widely adopted in EDs. Most EDs do not require the use of pediatric-specific mental health tools to guide assessments or have patient-centered procedures in place to guide the care of patients with mental health emergencies.5-7 Our team believes these limitations have led to the provision of acute mental health care that can lack sufficient quality and efficiency. This study protocol describes a trial designed to evaluate if a novel mental health care bundle that was co-designed with parents and youth results in greater improvements in the well-being of children and youth 30 days after seeking ED care for mental health and/or substance misuse concerns compared with existing care protocols. We hypothesize that the bundle will positively impact child and youth well-being, while also providing cost-effective health care system benefits.

Does Educational Handover Influence Subsequent Assessment?

PURPOSE: Educational handover (i.e., providing information about learners' past performance) is controversial. Proponents argue handover could help tailor learning opportunities. Opponents fear it could bias subsequent assessments and lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. This study examined whether raters provided with reports describing learners' minor weaknesses would generate different assessment scores or narrative comments than those who did not receive such reports. METHOD: In this 2018 mixed-methods, randomized, controlled, experimental study, clinical supervisors from 5 postgraduate (residency) programs were randomized into 3 groups receiving no educational handover (control), educational handover describing weaknesses in medical expertise, and educational handover describing weaknesses in communication. All participants watched the same videos of 2 simulated resident-patient encounters and assessed performance using a shortened mini-clinical evaluation exercise form. The authors compared mean scores, percentages of negative comments, comments focusing on medical expertise, and comments focusing on communication across experimental groups using analyses of variance. They examined potential moderating effects of supervisor experience, gender, and mindsets (fixed vs growth). RESULTS: Seventy-two supervisors participated. There was no effect of handover report on assessment scores (F(2, 69) = 0.31, P = .74) or percentage of negative comments (F(2, 60) = 0.33, P = .72). Participants who received a report indicating weaknesses in communication generated a higher percentage of comments on communication than the control group (63% vs 50%, P = .03). Participants who received a report indicating weaknesses in medical expertise generated a similar percentage of comments on expertise compared to the controls (46% vs 47%, P = .98). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial empirical data about the effects of educational handover and suggests it can-in some circumstances-lead to more targeted feedback without influencing scores. Further studies are required to examine the influence of reports for a variety of performance levels, areas of weakness, and learners.

Learner handover: Perspectives and recommendations from the front-line.

INTRODUCTION: Current medical education models increasingly rely on longitudinal assessments to document learner progress over time. This longitudinal focus has re-kindled discussion regarding learner handover-where assessments are shared across supervisors, rotations, and educational phases, to support learner growth and ease transitions. The authors explored the opinions of, experiences with, and recommendations for successful implementation of learner handover among clinical supervisors. METHODS: Clinical supervisors from five postgraduate medical education programs at one institution completed an online questionnaire exploring their views regarding learner handover, specifically: potential benefits, risks, and suggestions for implementation. Survey items included open-ended and numerical responses. The authors used an inductive content analysis approach to analyze the open-ended questionnaire responses, and descriptive and correlational analyses for numerical data. RESULTS: Seventy-two participants completed the questionnaire. Their perspectives varied widely. Suggested benefits of learner handover included tailored learning, improved assessments, and enhanced patient safety. The main reported risk was the potential for learner handover to bias supervisors' perceptions of learners, thereby affecting the validity of future assessments and influencing the learner's educational opportunities and well-being. Participants' suggestions for implementation focused on who should be involved, when and for whom it should occur, and the content that should be shared. DISCUSSION: The diverse opinions of, and recommendations for, learner handover highlight the necessity for handover to maximize learning potential while minimizing potential harms. Supervisors' suggestions for handover implementation reveal tensions between assessment-of and for-learning.

A Scoping Review of Physicians' Clinical Reasoning in Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Clinical reasoning is considered a core competency of physicians. Yet there is a paucity of research on clinical reasoning specifically in emergency medicine, as highlighted in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to examine the state of research on clinical reasoning in this specialty. Our team, composed of content and methodological experts, identified 3,763 articles in the literature, 95 of which were included. RESULTS: Most studies were published after 2000. Few studies focused on the cognitive processes involved in decisionmaking (ie, clinical reasoning). Of these, many confirmed findings from the general literature on clinical reasoning; specifically, the role of both intuitive and analytic processes. We categorized factors that influence decisionmaking into contextual, patient, and physician factors. Many studies focused on decisions in regard to investigations and admission. Test ordering is influenced by physicians' experience, fear of litigation, and concerns about malpractice. Fear of litigation and malpractice also increases physicians' propensity to admit patients. Context influences reasoning but findings pertaining to specific factors, such as patient flow and workload, were inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Many studies used designs such as descriptive or correlational methods, limiting the strength of findings. Many gray areas persist, in which studies are either scarce or yield conflicting results. The findings of this scoping review should encourage us to intensify research in the field of emergency physicians' clinical reasoning, particularly on the cognitive processes at play and the factors influencing them, using appropriate theoretical frameworks and more robust methods.

Focusing the focus group: impact of the awareness of major factors contributing to non-adherence to acute paediatric asthma guidelines.

RATIONALE: The administration of oral corticosteroids within the first hour in the emergency department is associated with reduced hospitalization rates in children with moderate and severe asthma, yet less than half of patients benefit from this recommendation. To ensure patients receive recommended treatment, a clear understanding of what is causing suboptimal care management is needed. The assessment of barriers and solutions to optimal care is often done without a thorough examination of the factors associated with non-adherence. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether knowledge of factors associated with delayed administration of systemic corticosteroids modifies the focus and prioritization of barriers and solutions identified by focus groups. METHODS: We conducted two parallel focus groups of emergency health care professionals - one group informed and the other non-informed of key factors. Both groups received a presentation on the acute asthma guidelines, the evidence supporting its recommendations, and current practice. In addition, the informed group was provided with the factors associated and not associated with delayed administration. The groups were given 20 minutes to discuss barriers and solutions, with 5 minutes each for voting for the main barriers and solutions. Group difference in the misdirection of discussion was measured as time spent discussing barriers that were shown not to be associated with systemic corticosteroids. Prioritization of barriers and solutions was based on group endorsement. RESULTS: The non-informed group spent more time discussing barriers not associated with delayed administration (15 vs. 2 minutes, P = 0.05). Although the non-informed group proposed more solutions, most were to overcome barriers not associated with delayed administration. Of the main barriers and solutions identified by each group, only one barrier and solution were similar between the two groups: emergency department overcrowding and administrating corticosteroids at triage. CONCLUSION: The awareness of objective factors of non-adherence enabled a more directed discussion on relevant barriers and solutions, affecting prioritization of each. The administration of oral corticosteroids at triage appears to be the best solution to overcome delayed administration.

Acute asthma in children and adolescents: should inhaled anticholinergics be added to beta(2)-agonists?

Children and adolescents experiencing acute exacerbations of asthma benefit from the use of beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (beta(2)-agonists) and systemic corticosteroids. However, there have been conflicting reports regarding the efficacy of inhaled anticholinergic agents. This article summarizes the evidence provided by randomized controlled trials studying the efficacy of adding inhaled anticholinergic agents to beta(2)-agonists in nonhospitalized children and adolescents with acute exacerbations of asthma. This systematic review of randomized controlled trials suggests that the addition of inhaled anticholinergic agents to beta(2)-agonists is beneficial in children and adolescents, particularly those with severe exacerbations of asthma. When given in repeated doses, the addition of inhaled anticholinergic agents to beta(2)-agonists improves lung function and reduces the risk of hospital admission by 25%. Several treatment regimens, namely ipratropium bromide (250 or 500 microg per dose) every 20-60 minutes for two to three doses have been tested with similar beneficial effects. The addition of a single dose of an inhaled anticholinergic agent to beta(2)-agonists improves lung function but does not prevent hospital admission. The review did not identify any beneficial effects of anticholinergic agents in children with nonsevere asthma. Use of anticholinergic agents was not associated with increase in the incidence of nausea, vomiting or tremor. In conclusion, the addition of repeated doses of an inhaled anticholinergic agent to inhaled beta(2)-agonist is indicated in the emergency room management of children and adolescents with acute asthma, particularly those with severe exacerbations.