Can I Ask a Question About URiM Awards That I Don't Know the Answer to? Designing an Award for Underrepresented Medical Education Researchers.

Meaningful Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) efforts may be stymied by concerns about whether proposed initiatives are performative or tokenistic. The purpose of this project was to analyze discussions by the Research in Medical Education (RIME) Program Planning committee about how best to recognize and support underrepresented in medicine (URiM) researchers in medical education to generate lessons learned that might inform local, national, and international actions to implement meaningful EDI initiatives. Ten RIME Program Planning Committee members and administrative staff participated in a focus group held virtually in August 2021. Focus group questions elicited opinions about "if and how" to establish a URiM research award. The focus group was recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Recognition of privilege, including who has it and who doesn't, underpinned the focus group discussion, which revolved around 2 themes: (1) tensions between optics and semantics, and (2) potential unintended consequences of trying to level the medical education playing field. The overarching storyline threaded throughout the focus group discussion was intentionality. Focus group participants sought to avoid performativity by creating an award that would be meaningful to recipients and to career gatekeepers such as department chairs and promotion and tenure committees. Ultimately, participants decided to create an award that focused on exemplary Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) scholarship, which was eventually named the "RIME URiM Research Award." Difficult but productive conversations about EDI initiatives are necessary to advance underrepresented in medicine (URiM) scholarship. This transparent commentary may trigger further critical conversations.

Residency Training: Quality improvement projects in neurology residency and fellowship: applying DMAIC methodology.

OBJECTIVE: Teaching quality improvement (QI) is a priority for residency and fellowship training programs. However, many medical trainees have had little exposure to QI methods. The purpose of this study is to review a rigorous and simple QI methodology (define, measure, analyze, improve, and control [DMAIC]) and demonstrate its use in a fellow-driven QI project aimed at reducing the number of delayed and canceled muscle biopsies at our institution. METHODS: DMAIC was utilized. The project aim was to reduce the number of delayed muscle biopsies to 10% or less within 24 months. Baseline data were collected for 12 months. These data were analyzed to identify root causes for muscle biopsy delays and cancellations. Interventions were developed to address the most common root causes. Performance was then remeasured for 9 months. RESULTS: Baseline data were collected on 97 of 120 muscle biopsies during 2013. Twenty biopsies (20.6%) were delayed. The most common causes were scheduling too many tests on the same day and lack of fasting. Interventions aimed at patient education and biopsy scheduling were implemented. The effect was to reduce the number of delayed biopsies to 6.6% (6/91) over the next 9 months. CONCLUSIONS: Familiarity with QI methodologies such as DMAIC is helpful to ensure valid results and conclusions. Utilizing DMAIC, we were able to implement simple changes and significantly reduce the number of delayed muscle biopsies at our institution.

Sonography in carpal tunnel syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Our objective in this study was to assess the diagnostic utility of the median nerve cross-sectional area (CSA) at the wrist, the wrist-forearm ratio, and the wrist-forearm difference in patients with and without carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). METHODS: Individuals with electrodiagnostically proven CTS and asymptomatic control subjects were recruited prospectively from among patients referred to our electrodiagnostic laboratory. Blinded measurements of CSA were made from transverse sonographic images of the median nerve at the wrist (pisiform) and mid-forearm. RESULTS: Fifty-five cases and 49 controls were recruited. Wrist median nerve CSA (15 vs. 9 mm²; P < 0.0001), wrist-forearm ratio (3.09 vs. 1.90 mm²; P < 0.0001), and wrist-forearm difference (10 vs. 4 mm²; P < 0.0001) were all significantly larger in CTS cases (areas under the curve = 0.89, 0.82, and 0.88, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Median nerve CSA at the carpal tunnel inlet and wrist-forearm difference provides the best discrimination between patients with CTS and controls according to receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. Age, gender, height, weight, and wrist size have no effect on CSA.

Effect of a multidisciplinary fall risk assessment on falls among neurology inpatients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the addition of a physician assessment of patient fall risk at admission would reduce inpatient falls on a tertiary hospital neurology inpatient unit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A physician fall risk assessment was added to the existing risk assessment process (clinical nurse evaluation and Hendrich II Fall Risk Model score with specific fall prevention measures for patients at risk). An order to select either "Patient is" or "Patient is not at high risk of falls by physician assessment" was added to the physician electronic admission order set. Nurses and physicians were instructed to reach consensus when assessments differed. Full implementation occurred in second-quarter 2008. Preimplementation (January 1, 2006, to March 31, 2008) and postimplementation (April 1, 2008, to December 31, 2009) rates of falls were compared on the neurology inpatient unit and on 6 other medical units that did not receive intervention. RESULTS: The rate of falls during the 7 quarters after full implementation was significantly lower than that during the 9 preceding quarters (4.12 vs 5.69 falls per 1000 patient-days; P=.04), whereas the rate of falls on other medical units did not significantly change (2.99 vs 3.33 falls per 1000 patient-days; P=.24, Poisson test). The consensus risk assessment at admission correctly identified patients at risk for falls (14/325 at-risk patients fell vs 0/147 low-risk patients; P=.01, χ2 test), but the Hendrich II Fall Risk Model score, nurse, and physician assessments individually did not. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary approach to fall risk assessment is feasible, correctly identifies patients at risk, and was associated with a reduction in inpatient falls.