An Opportunity for Change: Principles for Reforming Internal Medicine Inpatient Conferences.

Inpatient educational conferences are a key part of internal medicine residency training. Many residencies made conferences virtual during the COVID-19 pandemic, and are now returning to in-person sessions. As we navigate this change, we can seize this opportunity to re-evaluate the role that inpatient conferences serve in resident education. In this paper, we briefly review the history of inpatient educational conferences before offering five recommendations for improvement. Our recommendations include grounding conference formats in educational theory, leveraging the expertise of all potential educators, broadening content to include health equity and justice throughout all curricula, and explicitly focusing on cultivating community among participants. Recognizing that each residency program is different, we anticipate that these recommendations may be implemented differently based on program size, available resources, and current institutional practices. We also include examples of prior successful curricular reforms aligned with our principles. We hope these recommendations ensure inpatient conferences continue to be a central part of residency education for future generations of internal medicine residents.

Colorectal Cancer Safety Net: Is It Catching Patients Appropriately?

BACKGROUND: Disparities in access to colorectal cancer care are multifactorial and are affected by socioeconomic elements. Uninsured and Medicaid patients present with advanced stage disease and have worse outcomes compared with similar privately insured patients. Safety net hospitals are a major care provider to this vulnerable population. Few studies have evaluated outcomes for safety net hospitals compared with private institutions in colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare demographics, screening rates, presentation stage, and survival rates between a safety net hospital and a tertiary care center. DESIGN: Comparative review of patients at 2 institutions in the same metropolitan area were conducted. SETTINGS: The study included colorectal cancer care delivered either at 1 safety net hospital or 1 private tertiary care center in the same city from 2010 to 2016. PATIENTS: A total of 350 patients with colorectal cancer from each hospital were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall survival across hospital systems was measured. RESULTS: The safety net hospital had significantly more uninsured and Medicaid patients (46% vs 13%; p < 0.001) and a significantly lower median household income than the tertiary care center ($39,299 vs $49,741; p < 0.0001). At initial presentation, a similar percentage of patients at each hospital presented with stage IV disease (26% vs 20%; p = 0.06). For those undergoing resection, final pathologic stage distribution was similar across groups (p = 0.10). After a comparable median follow-up period (26.6 mo for safety net hospital vs 29.2 mo for tertiary care center), log-rank test for overall survival favored the safety net hospital (p = 0.05); disease-free survival was similar between hospitals (p = 0.40). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective review, reporting from medical charts. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the value of safety net hospitals for providing quality colorectal cancer care, with survival and recurrence outcomes equivalent or improved compared with a local tertiary care center. Because safety net hospitals can provide equivalent outcomes despite socioeconomic inequalities and financial constraints, emphasis should be focused on ensuring that adequate funding for these institutions continues. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A454.