A Mini Chalk Talk Workshop for Fourth-Year Medical Students: Facilitating the Transition From Student to Resident Educator.

Introduction: There is increasing recognition that incoming interns benefit from formal training in teaching skills during UME. Many medical schools have capstone courses well suited for teacher-training content. Mini chalk talks (MCTs) are a common clinical teaching modality requiring a variety of teaching skills. We developed a session for our institution's capstone course in which students prepared and delivered MCTs. Methods: The voluntary flipped classroom session was offered virtually in 2021 and in person in 2022. Before the session, students reviewed materials on creating effective MCTs and developed and practiced their own MCT. During the 90-minute session, students presented their MCT to a group of students in the same or similar future specialties and received feedback from their peers and a facilitator. Results: Twenty-six percent of graduating students (95 of 370) in 16 specialties participated. Students had a statistically significant increase in confidence delivering effective MCTs (p < .01). On a 5-point Likert scale (1 = did not learn, 5 = a great amount), students' mean ratings of clinical knowledge and teaching skills gained from the session were 4.4 and 4.5, respectively. Qualitative feedback highlighted the benefits of receiving feedback on teaching (31 of 77 respondents, 40%), practicing teaching skills (21 of 77, 27%), and experiencing other students' MCTs (13 of 77, 17%). Discussion: Our MCT session provides a versatile, resource-efficient method of supporting students in transitioning to the role of resident educators. It also offers them an opportunity to receive valuable feedback on their teaching in a low-stakes environment.

Patients' and physicians' beliefs and attitudes towards integrating personalized risk estimates into patient education about left ventricular assist device therapy.

BACKGROUND: Personalized risk (PR) estimates may enhance clinical decision making and risk communication by providing individualized estimates of patient outcomes. We explored stakeholder attitudes toward the utility, acceptability, usefulness and best-practices for integrating PR estimates into patient education and decision making about Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: As part of a 5-year multi-institutional AHRQ project, we conducted 40 interviews with stakeholders (physicians, nurse coordinators, patients, and caregivers), analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis. All stakeholder groups voiced positive views towards integrating PR in decision making. Patients, caregivers and coordinators emphasized that PR can help to better understand a patient's condition and risks, prepare mentally and logistically for likely outcomes, and meaningfully engage in decision making. Physicians felt it can improve their decision making by enhancing insight into outcomes, enhance tailored pre-emptive care, increase confidence in decisions, and reduce bias and subjectivity. All stakeholder groups also raised concerns about accuracy, representativeness and relevance of algorithms; predictive uncertainty; utility in relation to physician's expertise; potential negative reactions among patients; and overreliance. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders are optimistic about integrating PR into clinical decision making, but acceptability depends on prospectively demonstrating accuracy, relevance and evidence that benefits of PR outweigh potential negative impacts on decision making quality.

How Should Technology-Dependent Patients' Care Be Managed Collaboratively to Avoid Turfing?

Technology-dependent patients require interventions (eg, tracheostomies, gastrostomy tubes, or total parenteral nutrition) to survive. Such patients are commonly "turfed" between general services or from subspecialty to general services within the hospital. This case commentary proposes several explanations for why technology-dependent patients are particularly susceptible to turfing, including clinicians' lack of familiarity with managing patients' technology, bias and ableism, and quality-of-life quandaries. It also addresses ways to combat turfing of technology-dependent patients and proposes educational strategies for managing common problems in the care of technology-dependent patients.

An Open Discussion of the Impact of OpenNotes on Clinical Ethics: A Justification for Harm-Based Exclusions from Clinical Ethics Documentation.

The OpenNotes (ON) mandate in the 21st Century Cures Act requires that patients or their legally authorized representatives be able to access their medical information in their electronic medical record (EMR) in real time. Ethics notes fall under the domain of this policy. We argue that ethics notes are unique from other clinical documentation in a number of ways: they lack best-practice guidelines, are written in the context of common misconceptions surrounding the purpose of ethics consultation, and often answer questions of a different nature than other documentation. Thus, we believe the clinical ethics community would benefit from clarification on when the withholding of ethics notes is justified. We provide recommendations for excluding information from ethics documentation based on the likelihood and magnitude of harm that may occur with particular disclosures and suggest approaches to decrease the potential harms that may occur. We define and explain six types of reasons to exclude information from ethics notes based on significant harms that are not addressed in the ON policy: (1) harmful revelations from a protected chart note; (2) negative emotional effects on patients or families; (3) the purpose of the consultation is undermined by harmful consequences; (4) avoidable negative impact on interpersonal dynamics; (5) inappropriate labeling or disclosure of medical, social, or financial information; and (6) inclusion of biasing or otherwise unfair information. We also suggest approaches to mitigate harm when excluding, including, reframing, or delaying release of information that is perceived to be relevant to an ethics case. Overall, we hope our analysis and recommendations will initiate a much-needed discussion about the impact of the ON mandate on clinical ethics documentation.

Implementation of a Night-Float Curriculum: Impact on Intern Confidence over Time.

OBJECTIVES: Formal nighttime education is becoming increasingly necessary as more internal medicine (IM) residency programs adopt night-float rotations (NFRs); however, the efficacy of an NFR curriculum throughout an academic year and which topics in an NFR curriculum increase trainee confidence are unknown. We implemented a 12-module, self-paced NFR curriculum for 76 postgraduate year-1 residents at an academic IM residency program. We evaluated the impact of this curriculum on postgraduate year-1 residents' clinical confidence, as well as longitudinal efficacy of the curriculum. METHODS: Night-float interns' (NFIs) clinical confidence regarding specific curricular topics was evaluated overall and during specific timeframes within the academic year. Pre- and post-NFR surveys using Likert scales for each topic were administered to NFIs from June 24, 2020 to March 2, 2021, representing 32 week-long NFR cycles. RESULTS: NFIs' pre- and postrotation confidence in managing clinical scenarios significantly improved for all 12 topics in the NFR curriculum. The NFR curriculum resulted most significantly in improved confidence during the first 4 months of the academic year, with 11 of 12 curricular topics reaching the threshold for statistical significance. Modules on altered mental status, hypotension, narrow-complex tachyarrhythmias, new fever, and sepsis and antibiotic escalation maintained their efficacy for the longest periods of time. CONCLUSIONS: It may be especially important to emphasize an NFR curriculum at the beginning of the academic year. IM residency programs also may wish to carefully consider that certain topics may maintain their efficacy throughout the year, whereas other topics should potentially be replaced with more complex modules as the academic year progresses.

Attitudes and Beliefs of Patients With Left-Ventricular Assist Devices Toward COVID-19 Vaccination and Willingness to Seek Care During the Pandemic.

Given the stalling improvement in vaccine hesitancy rates in the United States (US), it is important to understand why a chronically ill group, patients with left-ventricular assist devices (LVADs), might not get vaccinated and to delineate the barriers they may face in seeking care. We conducted an online survey to characterize the attitudes of patients with LVADs toward COVID-19 vaccination, identify their willingness to seek care during the pandemic, and characterize barriers to doing so. Our survey showed that the rate of vaccine hesitancy among LVAD patients is similar to that of the general population in the US. This rate is higher than expected for a chronically ill group at risk of severe COVID-19 infection. We also found that LVAD patients perceive barriers to seeking care during the pandemic. We recommend that LVAD care teams emphasize that patients should seek care for emergency medical conditions despite their fears of contracting COVID-19. Based on our results, we also recommend vaccine uptake education for this population focused on patients' concerns about serious side effects and not enough research done on the vaccine.

Pursuit of "endpoint diagnoses" as a cognitive forcing strategy to avoid premature diagnostic closure.

Premature closure is often described as a significant contributor to diagnostic error. Therefore, developing strategies to mitigate premature closure could reduce diagnostic errors and improve patient care. Here we propose the novel concept of pursuit of an "endpoint diagnosis" as a cognitive forcing strategy (CFS) for avoiding premature diagnostic closure. We define an "endpoint diagnosis" as an underlying causative explanation for a patient's signs, symptoms, and laboratory and radiographic data that exhausts additional relevant diagnostic evaluation. We have observed four contexts in which the error of not pursuing an endpoint diagnosis most often occurs: (1) diagnoses that appear to result in the same treatment regardless of etiology, (2) cases that are particularly complex, (3) clinical scenarios that are vulnerable to systems errors, and (4) situations in which patients' problems are attributed to uncontrolled underlying risk factors or an exacerbation of a known condition. Additionally, we address why we believe endpoint diagnoses are not universally pursued, delineate when this approach might be particularly useful, attempt to reconcile the potential conflict between accepting diagnostic ambiguity in certain instances and pursuing endpoint diagnoses, and outline possible concerns that might arise with using this CFS, including the possibility of lengthy evaluations resulting in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Our overarching goal is for this CFS to help clinicians in their daily clinical practice as they seek to optimize their diagnostic skill and patient care.

The Nazi Analogy Muddles Our Thinking About Physician Aid-in-Dying in the US.

What has become known in bioethics as "the Nazi analogy" likens a change's potential to precipitate moral deterioration to Nazi atrocities of the mid-20th century. This analogy has been applied in physician aid-in-dying (PAD) deliberations by those fearful that a physician's role in enabling a patient's death is too similar to Nazi physicians' roles in systematic murders during the Holocaust. This article suggests the importance of carefully distinguishing between when the Nazi analogy is aptly applied and when its use is limited to urging great caution about abuse or inequity.

Referral Criteria to Palliative Care for Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure have significant symptom burden, care needs, and often a progressive course to end-stage disease. Palliative care referrals may be helpful but it is currently unclear when patients should be referred and by whom. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to examine referral criteria for palliative care among patients with heart failure. METHODS: We searched Ovid, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PubMed databases for articles in the English language from the inception of databases to January 17, 2019 related to palliative care referral in patients with heart failure. Two investigators independently reviewed each citation for inclusion and then extracted the referral criteria. Referral criteria were then categorized thematically. RESULTS: Of the 1199 citations in our initial search, 102 articles were included in the final sample. We identified 18 categories of referral criteria, including 7 needs-based criteria and 10 disease-based criteria. The most commonly discussed criterion was physical or emotional symptoms (n=51 [50%]), followed by cardiac stage (n=46 [45%]), hospital utilization (n=38 [37%]), prognosis (n=37 [36%]), and advanced cardiac therapies (n=36 [35%]). Under cardiac stage, 31 (30%) articles suggested New York Heart Association functional class ≥III and 12 (12%) recommended New York Heart Association class ≥IV as cutoffs for referral. Prognosis of ≤1 year was mentioned in 21 (21%) articles as a potential trigger; few other criteria had specific cutoffs. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlighted the lack of consensus regarding referral criteria for the involvement of palliative care in patients with heart failure. Further research is needed to identify appropriate and timely triggers for palliative care referral.

When patients die: patient memorials and group reflection in an internal medicine residency program.

Patient death is a formative and emotional experience for physicians. Medical trainees are particularly susceptible to the emotional impact of patient death. However, few studies have examined how trainees process patient death. This study describes annual patient memorials organized at a large multisite academic graduate medical education program. Peer-led, 1-hour patient memorial services were organized for internal medicine residents, including large and small group reflection, a moment of silence, and collective art projects. At the conclusion of each memorial, participants completed a 10-question survey regarding their experience during the memorial and their prior experiences with patient death. Ninety-nine surveys were analyzed over 2 years. Of resident respondents, 84% reported feeling comfortable or very comfortable participating in the memorials, and 93% rated reflection on patient death as important or very important. When asked how they reflect on patient death, 67% of residents reported processing patient death independently, while only 23% reported processing patient death with their medical teams. Patient memorials with small and large group discussions are easily adopted and replicated. Residents reflect on patient death frequently but often independently rather than with their medical teams. Patient memorials provide a venue for collective mourning and group reflection to support trainees.

Assessment of patients' and caregivers' informational and decisional needs for left ventricular assist device placement: Implications for informed consent and shared decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Several organizations have underscored the crucial need for patient-centered decision tools to enhance shared decision-making in advanced heart failure. The purpose of this study was to investigate the decision-making process and informational and decisional needs of patients and their caregivers regarding left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement. METHODS: In-depth, structured interviews with LVAD patients, candidates and caregivers (spouse, family members) (n = 45) were conducted. We also administered a Decisional Regret Scale. RESULTS: Participants reported LVAD decision-making to be quick and reflexive (n = 30), and deferred heavily to clinicians (n = 22). They did not perceive themselves as having a real choice (n = 28). The 2 most prevalent informational domains that participants identified were lifestyle issues (23 items), followed by technical (drive-line, battery) issues (14 items). Participants easily and clearly identified their values: life extension; family; and mobility. Participants reported the need to meet other patients and caregivers before device placement (n = 31), and to have an involved caregiver (n = 28) to synthesize information. Some participants demonstrated a lack of clarity regarding transplant probability: 9 of 15 patients described themselves as on a transplant trajectory, yet 7 of these were destination therapy patients. Finally, we found that decisional regret scores were low (1.307). CONCLUSIONS: Informed consent and shared-decision making should: (a) help patients offered highly invasive technologies for life-threatening disease get past the initial "anything to avoid thinking about death" reaction and make a more informed decision; (b) clarify transplant status; and (c) focus on lifestyle and technical issues, as patients have the most informational needs in these domains.