Early childhood development strategy for the world's children with disabilities.

Early childhood is foundational for optimal and inclusive lifelong learning, health and well-being. Young children with disabilities face substantial risks of sub-optimal early childhood development (ECD), requiring targeted support to ensure equitable access to lifelong learning opportunities, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Although the Sustainable Development Goals, 2015-2030 (SDGs) emphasise inclusive education for children under 5 years with disabilities, there is no global strategy for achieving this goal since the launch of the SDGs. This paper explores a global ECD framework for children with disabilities based on a review of national ECD programmes from different world regions and relevant global ECD reports published since 2015. Available evidence suggests that any ECD strategy for young children with disabilities should consists of a twin-track approach, strong legislative support, guidelines for early intervention, family involvement, designated coordinating agencies, performance indicators, workforce recruitment and training, as well as explicit funding mechanisms and monitoring systems. This approach reinforces parental rights and liberty to choose appropriate support pathway for their children. We conclude that without a global disability-focussed ECD strategy that incorporates these key features under a dedicated global leadership, the SDGs vision and commitment for the world's children with disabilities are unlikely to be realised.

Factors Influencing Primary Care Career Choice: A Multi-Institutional Cross-sectional Survey of Internal Medicine Primary Care Residency Graduates.

BACKGROUND: Although primary care is associated with population health benefits, the supply of primary care physicians continues to decline. Internal medicine (IM) primary care residency programs have produced graduates that pursue primary care; however, it is uncertain what characteristics and training factors most affect primary care career choice. OBJECTIVE: To assess factors that influenced IM primary care residents to pursue a career in primary care versus a non-primary care career. DESIGN: Multi-institutional cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: IM primary care residency graduates from seven residency programs from 2014 to 2019. MAIN MEASURES: Descriptive analyses of respondent characteristics, residency training experiences, and graduate outcomes were performed. Bivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between primary care career choice with both graduate characteristics and training experiences. KEY RESULTS: There were 256/314 (82%) residents completing the survey. Sixty-six percent of respondents (n = 169) practiced primary care or primary care with a specialized focus such as geriatrics, HIV primary care, or women's health. Respondents who pursued a primary care career were more likely to report the following as positive influences on their career choice: resident continuity clinic experience, nature of the PCP-patient relationship, ability to care for a broad spectrum of patient pathology, breadth of knowledge and skills, relationship with primary care mentors during residency training, relationship with fellow primary care residents during training, and lifestyle/work hours (all p < 0.05). Respondents who did not pursue a primary care career were more likely to agree that the following factors detracted them from a primary care career: excessive administrative burden, demanding clinical work, and concern about burnout in a primary care career (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to optimize the outpatient continuity clinic experience for residents, cultivate a supportive learning community of primary care mentors and residents, and decrease administrative burden in primary care may promote primary care career choice.

What makes an article a must read in medical education?

BACKGROUND: The dissemination of published scholarship is intended to bring new evidence and ideas to a wide audience. However, the increasing number of articles makes it challenging to determine where to focus one's attention. This study describes factors that may influence decisions to read and recommend a medical education article. METHODS: Authors analyzed data collected from March 2021 through September 2022 during a monthly process to identify "Must Read" articles in medical education. An international team of health sciences educators, learners, and researchers voted on titles and abstracts to advance articles to full text review. Full texts were rated using five criteria: relevance, methodology, readability, originality, and whether it addressed a critical issue in medical education. At an end-of-month meeting, 3-4 articles were chosen by consensus as "Must Read" articles. Analyses were used to explore the associations of article characteristics and ratings with Must Read selection. RESULTS: Over a period of 19 months, 7487 articles from 856 journals were screened, 207 (2.8%) full texts were evaluated, and 62 (0.8%) were chosen as Must Reads. During screening, 3976 articles (53.1%) received no votes. BMC Medical Education had the largest number of articles at screening (n = 1181, 15.8%). Academic Medicine had the largest number as Must Reads (n = 22, 35.5%). In logistic regressions adjusting for the effect of individual reviewers, all rating criteria were independently associated with selection as a Must Read (p < 0.05), with methodology (OR 1.44 (95%CI = 1.23-1.69) and relevance (OR 1.43 (95%CI = 1.20-1.70)) having the highest odds ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of the published medical education articles did not appeal to a diverse group of potential readers; this represents a missed opportunity to make an impact and potentially wasted effort. Our findings suggest opportunities to enhance value in the production and dissemination of medical education scholarship.

Group concept mapping for health professions education scholarship.

While explicit conceptual models help to inform research, they are left out of much of the health professions education (HPE) literature. One reason may be the limited understanding about how to develop conceptual models with intention and rigor. Group concept mapping (GCM) is a mixed methods conceptualization approach that has been used to develop frameworks for planning and evaluation, but GCM has not been common in HPE. The purpose of this article is to describe GCM in order to make it more accessible for HPE scholars. We recount the origins and evolution of GCM and summarize its core features: GCM can combine multiple stakeholder perspectives in a systematic and inclusive manner to generate explicit conceptual models. Based on the literature and prior experience using GCM, we detail seven steps in GCM: (1) brainstorming ideas to a specific "focus prompt," (2) preparing ideas by removing duplicates and editing for consistency, (3) sorting ideas according to conceptual similarity, (4) generating the point map through quantitative analysis, (5) interpreting cluster map options, (6) summarizing the final concept map, and (7) reporting and using the map. We provide illustrative examples from HPE studies and compare GCM to other conceptualization methods. GCM has great potential to add to the myriad of methodologies open to HPE researchers. Its alignment with principles of diversity and inclusivity, as well as the need to be systematic in applying theoretical and conceptual frameworks to practice, make it a method well suited for the complexities of contemporary HPE scholarship.

Blind spots in medical education - International perspectives.

BACKGROUND: All individuals and groups have blind spots that can create problems if unaddressed. The goal of this study was to examine blind spots in medical education from international perspectives. METHODS: From December 2022 to March 2023, we distributed an electronic survey through international networks of medical students, postgraduate trainees, and medical educators. Respondents named blind spots affecting their medical education system and then rated nine blind spot domains from a study of U.S. medical education along five-point Likert-type scales (1 = much less attention needed; 5 = much more attention needed). We tested for differences between blind spot ratings by respondent groups. We also analyzed the blind spots that respondents identified to determine those not previously described and performed content analysis on open-ended responses about blind spot domains. RESULTS: There were 356 respondents from 88 countries, including 127 (44%) educators, 80 (28%) medical students, and 33 (11%) postgraduate trainees. At least 80% of respondents rated each blind spot domain as needing 'more' or 'much more' attention; the highest was 88% for 'Patient perspectives and voices that are not heard, valued, or understood.' In analyses by gender, role in medical education, World Bank country income level, and region, a mean difference of 0.5 was seen in only five of the possible 279 statistical comparisons. Of 885 blind spots documented, new blind spot areas related to issues that crossed national boundaries (e.g. international standards) and the sufficiency of resources to support medical education. Comments about the nine blind spot domains illustrated that cultural, health system, and governmental elements influenced how blind spots are manifested across different settings. DISCUSSION: There may be general agreement throughout the world about blind spots in medical education that deserve more attention. This could establish a basis for coordinated international effort to allocate resources and tailor interventions that advance medical education.

Hospitalizations and transgender patients in the United States.

It is known that transgender people experience health inequalities. Disparities in hospital outcomes impacting transgender individuals have been inadequately explored. We conducted this retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample (01/2018-12/2019) to compare in-hospital mortality and utilization variables between cisgender and transgender individuals using regression analyses. Approximately two-thirds of hospitalizations for transgender patients (n = 10,245) were for psychiatric diagnoses. Compared to cisgender patients, there were no significant differences in adjusted means differences (aMD) in length of stay (LOS) (aMD = -0.29; p = .16) or total charges (aMD = -$486; p = .56). An additional 4870 transgender patients were admitted for medical diagnoses. Transgender and cisgender individuals had similar adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for in-hospital mortality (aOR = 0.96; p = .88) and total hospital charges (aMD = -$3118; p = .21). However, transgender individuals had longer LOS (aMD = +0.46 days; confidence interval [CI]: 0.15-0.90; p = .04). When comparing mortality and resource utilization between cisgender and transgender individuals, differences were negligible.

Seeing with greater clarity: Stakeholder ratings of blind spots in U.S. medical education.

BACKGROUND: Although medical education is affected by numerous blind spots, there is limited evidence to determine which blind spots to prioritize. METHODS: In summer 2022, we surveyed stakeholders from U.S. medical education who had identified 9 domains and 72 subdomains of blind spots. Respondents used 4-point Likert-type scales to rate the extent and magnitude of problems caused for each domain and subdomain. Respondents also provided comments for which we did content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 23/27 (85%) stakeholders responded. The majority of respondents rated each blind spot domain as moderate-major in both extent and problems they cause. Patient perspectives and voices that are not heard, valued, or understood was the domain with the most stakeholders rating extent (n = 20, 87%) and problems caused (n = 23, 100%) as moderate or major. Admitting and selecting learners likely to practice in settings of highest need was the subdomain with the most stakeholders rating extent (n = 21, 91%) and problems caused (n = 22, 96%) as moderate or major. Respondents' comments suggested blind spots may depend on context and persist because of hierarchies and tradition. DISCUSSION: We found blind spots differed in relative importance. These data may inform further research and direct interventions to improve medical education.

Physical Restraint Usage in Hospitals Across the United States: 2011-2019.

Objective: To determine the change in rates of physical restraint (PR) use and associated outcomes among hospitalized adults. Patients and Methods: Using national inpatient sample databases, we analyzed years 2011-2014 and 2016-2019 to determine trends of PR usage. We also compared the years 2011-2012 and 2018-2019 to investigate rates of PR use, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and total hospital charges. Results: There were 242,994,110 hospitalizations during the study period. 1,538,791 (0.63%) had coding to signify PRs, compared with 241,455,319 (99.3%), which did not. From 2011 to 2014, there was a significant increase in PR use (p-trend<.01) and a nonsignificant increase in PR rates from 2016-2019 (p-trend=.07). Over time, PR use increased (2011-2012: 0.52% vs 2018-2019: 0.73%; p<.01). Patients with PRs reported a higher adjusted odds for in-hospital mortality in 2011-2012 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.9; 95% CI, 3.7-4.2; p<.01) and 2018-2019 (aOR, 3.5; 95% CI, 3.4-3.7; p<.01). Length of stay was prolonged for patients with PRs in 2011-2012 (adjusted mean difference [aMD], 4.3 days; 95% CI, 4.1-4.5; p<.01) and even longer in 2018-2019 (aMD, 5.8 days; 95% CI, 5.6-6.0; p<.01). Total hospital charges were higher for patients with PRs in 2011-2012 (aMD, +$55,003; 95% CI, $49,309-$60,679; p<.01). Following adjustment for inflation, total charges remained higher for patients with PRs compared with those without PRs in 2018-2019 (aMD, +$70,018; 95% CI, $65,355-$74,680; p<.01). Conclusion: Overall, PR rates did not decrease across the study period, suggesting that messaging and promulgating best practice guidelines have yet to translate into a substantive change in practice patterns.

Exploring Clinical Lessons Learned by Experienced Hospitalists from Diagnostic Errors and Successes.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors cause significant patient harm. The clinician's ultimate goal is to achieve diagnostic excellence in order to serve patients safely. This can be accomplished by learning from both errors and successes in patient care. However, the extent to which clinicians grow and navigate diagnostic errors and successes in patient care is poorly understood. Clinically experienced hospitalists, who have cared for numerous acutely ill patients, should have great insights from their successes and mistakes to inform others striving for excellence in patient care. OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize clinical lessons learned by experienced hospitalists from diagnostic errors and successes. DESIGN: A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect qualitative data from hospitalists at five independently administered hospitals in the Mid-Atlantic area from February to June 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 12 academic and 12 community-based hospitalists with ≥ 5 years of clinical experience. APPROACH: A constructivist qualitative approach was used and "reflexive thematic analysis" of interview transcripts was conducted to identify themes and patterns of meaning across the dataset. RESULTS: Five themes were generated from the data based on clinical lessons learned by hospitalists from diagnostic errors and successes. The ideas included appreciating excellence in clinical reasoning as a core skill, connecting with patients and other members of the health care team to be able to tap into their insights, reflecting on the diagnostic process, committing to growth, and prioritizing self-care. CONCLUSIONS: The study identifies key lessons learned from the errors and successes encountered in patient care by clinically experienced hospitalists. These findings may prove helpful for individuals and groups that are authentically committed to moving along the continuum from diagnostic competence towards excellence.

Learning from the early careers of master clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Master clinicians are recognized as multidimensional experts in clinical medicine. Studying their formative clinical activities could generate insights to guide medical trainees and early career clinicians. OBJECTIVES: To investigate which early career activities were adopted more commonly by master clinicians than their matched peers and to characterize master clinicians' early career activities across institutions and specialties. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We surveyed master clinicians at seven medical centres about their early career activities. For master clinicians in the Department of Medicine (DOM), we also surveyed matched internist peers. RESULTS: Of 150 master clinician respondents, 65% were internists (DOM); 35% practiced in other specialties. Compared to their internist peers, there was a trend toward internist master clinicians reading more about their patients' conditions (6.0 vs. 4.8 h per week), reading more case reports (4.0 vs. 2.1 per month), engaging in more frequent teaching duties and devoting less time to research. CONCLUSIONS: The early career activities identified in this study can be adopted by clinicians pursuing clinical excellence and promoted by training programs that seek to foster life-long learning.

Assessing clinical reasoning skills following a virtual patient dizziness curriculum.

OBJECTIVES: Dizziness is a common medical symptom that is frequently misdiagnosed. While virtual patient (VP) education has been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy for dizziness as assessed by VPs, trainee performance has not been assessed on human subjects. The study aimed to assess whether internal medicine (IM) interns after training on a VP-based dizziness curriculum using a deliberate practice framework would demonstrate improved clinical reasoning when assessed in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). METHODS: All available interns volunteered and were randomized 2:1 to intervention (VP education) vs. control (standard clinical teaching) groups. This quasi-experimental study was conducted at one academic medical center from January to May 2021. Both groups completed pre-posttest VP case assessments (scored as correct diagnosis across six VP cases) and participated in an OSCE done 6 weeks later. The OSCEs were recorded and assessed using a rubric that was systematically developed and validated. RESULTS: Out of 21 available interns, 20 participated. Between intervention (n=13) and control (n=7), mean pretest VP diagnostic accuracy scores did not differ; the posttest VP scores improved for the intervention group (3.5 [SD 1.3] vs. 1.6 [SD 0.8], p=0.007). On the OSCE, the means scores were higher in the intervention (n=11) compared to control group (n=4) for physical exam (8.4 [SD 4.6] vs. 3.9 [SD 4.0], p=0.003) and total rubric score (43.4 [SD 12.2] vs. 32.6 [SD 11.3], p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The VP-based dizziness curriculum resulted in improved diagnostic accuracy among IM interns with enhanced physical exam skills retained at 6 weeks post-intervention.

Transforming the transfer process: A quality improvement project to assess and improve transfer notes.

Transfer notes (TNs) standardize handoffs from one inpatient unit to another to optimize patient safety. They are especially important when patients are downgraded from high acuity settings such as intensive care units (ICU). Despite this, there is a paucity of evidence around safe transfers. The study objective was to assess the impact of a quality improvement initiative on the completion rate and quality of TNs. A retrospective chart review of TNs was conducted at a single academic center in Baltimore, MD. We analyzed 76 MICU to floor transfers pre-intervention and 73 transfers during the intervention period. Note quality was determined using a novel TN assessment tool; validity evidence was established. Chi-square analysis was used to compare the presence and quality of TNs. There was a statistically significant increase in note completion rate from 19.7% to 42.5 % during the study (p < 0.003). There was a statistically significant increase in mean quality of completed TNs (10.3 pre-intervention vs. 12.3 intervention period: maximum score 15, p = 0.005). This QI intervention appears to have translated into more consistent and higher quality TNs. These improvements should facilitate better and safer care of patients moving from MICU to medical floors.

The selection of chief residents across residency programs at a large academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Chief residents have a unique role in graduate medical education (GME). They not only connect residents with program and hospital leadership, but also advocate for the wellbeing and educational priorities of trainees. Previous studies have focused on describing the characteristics of chief residents (CRs), however little is known about how CRs are selected across GME programs. METHODS: One-on-one semi-structured interviews with all (n = 21) GME program directors at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine were conducted from January to March 2022. Investigators independently coded the transcripts using an inductive approach to categorize meaningful segments of text; this culminated in the identification of explanatory themes. RESULTS: From discussions with 21 program directors, four themes were identified: (1) identifying candidates: timing, recruitment, nominations, as well as desirable attributes and data considered; (2) applications: expression of intent and participation in interviews; (3) selections: voting, discussions leading to consensus, and program director intimately involved in the choice(s); and (4) confidence in processes and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide a deeper understanding of the nuances associated with the selection of CRs. It is hoped that the descriptions of the similarities and differences across GME programs will prompt reflection about what is done at one institution such that all programs can consider what are the best practices to serve their individual goals and needs.

Using Group Concept Mapping to Explore Medical Education's Blind Spots.

PHENOMENON: All individuals and groups have blind spots that can lead to mistakes, perpetuate biases, and limit innovations. The goal of this study was to better understand how blind spots manifest in medical education by seeking them out in the U.S. APPROACH: We conducted group concept mapping (GCM), a research method that involves brainstorming ideas, sorting them according to conceptual similarity, generating a point map that represents consensus among sorters, and interpreting the cluster maps to arrive at a final concept map. Participants in this study were stakeholders from the U.S. medical education system (i.e., learners, educators, administrators, regulators, researchers, and commercial resource producers) and those from the broader U.S. health system (i.e., patients, nurses, public health professionals, and health system administrators). All participants brainstormed ideas to the focus prompt: "To educate physicians who can meet the health needs of patients in the U.S. health system, medical education should become less blind to (or pay more attention to) …" Responses to this prompt were reviewed and synthesized by our study team to prepare them for sorting, which was done by a subset of participants from the medical education system. GCM software combined sorting solutions using a multidimensional scaling analysis to produce a point map and performed cluster analyses to generate cluster solution options. Our study team reviewed and interpreted all cluster solutions from five to 25 clusters to decide upon the final concept map. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven stakeholders shared 298 blind spots during brainstorming. To decrease redundancy, we reduced these to 208 in preparation for sorting. Ten stakeholders independently sorted the blind spots, and the final concept map included 9 domains and 72 subdomains of blind spots that related to (1) admissions processes; (2) teaching practices; (3) assessment and curricular designs; (4) inequities in education and health; (5) professional growth and identity formation; (6) patient perspectives; (7) teamwork and leadership; (8) health systems care models and financial practices; and (9) government and business policies. INSIGHTS: Soliciting perspectives from diverse stakeholders to identify blind spots in medical education uncovered a wide array of issues that deserve more attention. The concept map may also be used to help prioritize resources and direct interventions that can stimulate change and bring medical education into better alignment with the health needs of patients and communities.

Outcomes among hospitalized patients with dementia and behavioral disturbances when physical restraints are introduced.

BACKGROUND: Physical restraint use among patients hospitalized with dementia and behavioral disturbances has not been studied nationally in the United States. METHODS: National Inpatient Sample database years 2016 through 2020 were used to compare physically restrained and unrestrained patients with dementia and behavioral disturbances. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess patient outcomes. RESULTS: There were 991,605 patients coded for dementia with behavioral disturbances. Among these, physical restraints were used with 64,390 (6.5%) and not with 927,215 (93.5%). Patients in the restrained group were younger (mean age ± standard error: 78.7 ± 0.25 vs. 79.9 ± 0.34 ; p < 0.01) and more often male (59.0% vs. 45.8%; p < 0.01) compared to the unrestrained group. A higher proportion of Black patients were in the restrained group (15.2% vs. 11.8%; p < 0.01). Larger hospitals also made up a more significant proportion of restrained versus unrestrained patients (53.3% vs. 45.1%; p < 0.01). Those with physical restraints had longer lengths of stays (adjusted mean difference [aMD] = 2.6 days CI [2.2-3.0]; p < 0.01) and higher total hospital charges (aMD = $13,150 CI [10,827-15,472]; p < 0.01). There were similar adjusted odds for in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.0 [CI 0.95-1.1]; p = 0.28) and lower odds of being discharged to home after hospitalization (aOR = 0.74 [0.70-0.79]; <0.01) for patients with physical restraints compared to those without. CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized with dementia and behavioral disturbances, those with physical restraints had greater hospital resource utilization outcomes. Attempts to limit physical restraint use whenever possible may improve outcomes in this vulnerable population.