A university-wide seed grant program accelerates interprofessional education through faculty and staff engagement.

The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio launched an annual university-wide seed grant program in 2019 to foster innovation in interprofessional education (IPE) and increase IPE opportunities for learners. Program objectives included leveraging hypothesis-driven research to identify sustainable IPE activities for integration into educational programs (i.e. mandated for at least one cohort of learners), increasing scholarly dissemination of IPE efforts, and using pilot data to secure extramural funding. Over the first four funding cycles (2019-2022), US$100,509.00 was awarded to support 22 IPE projects (10 curricular, 12 co-curricular) involving 80 faculty and staff collaborators and over 2,100 student participants. To date, funded projects have yielded nine sustained IPE activities (four of which have been integrated), produced 24 scholarly presentations and three peer-reviewed publications, and contributed to the success of one extramural grant. Barriers experienced are discussed in this report alongside lessons learned and unexpected positive outcomes, including identification of future IPE champions.

Innovation in Collaborative Online Learning Yields Sustainable Model for University-wide Interprofessional Education.

BACKGROUND: Growing health professional accreditation mandates and expectations for interprofessional education (IPE) have led to heightened interest amongst health professions educators and administrators in the creation and development of effective and sustainable IPE programming. IPE ACTIVITY: At the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, an institution-wide initiative called Linking Interprofessional Networks for Collaboration (LINC) was initiated to strengthen IPE knowledge and skills, increase IPE offerings, and integrate IPE into curricula. In 2020, stakeholders developed, implemented, and evaluated a university-wide IPE activity called the LINC Common IPE Experience, which includes three collaborative online learning modules that students complete synchronously using a videoconference platform without direct faculty facilitation. Mini-lectures, interprofessional discussions, and authentic case studies using innovative media facilitated meaningful engagement of 977 students from 26 different educational programs. DISCUSSION: Quantitative and qualitative results from evaluations demonstrated significant student engagement, increased awareness and understanding of teamwork, progress towards interprofessional competency development, and benefits related to professional development. The LINC Common IPE Experience provides a valuable example of a robust, high-impact foundational IPE activity that can serve as a sustainable model for university-wide IPE.

Efficacy of Commercial Chest Seal Adherence and Tension Pneumothorax Prevention: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies.

BACKGROUND: Penetrating thoracic injuries account for an essential subset of battlefield and civilian injuries that result in death. Current recommendations are to use commercially available nonocclusive chest seals. We review current evidence for which chest seal(s) is likely to be the most effective in treating open pneumothoraces. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRIMSA 2009 standard systematic review methodology, except where noted. The databases Pubmed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and gray sources were searched for all English-language, full-manuscript, experimental, quantitative studies of humans and animals concerning seal adherence or their efficacy at preventing tension pneumothoraces published between 1990 and 2020. A numerical analysis was used to provide the consensus recommendation. RESULTS: Of 683 eligible identified articles [PubMed 528 (77.3%), Scopus 87 (12.7%), CINAHL 67 (9.8%), one (0.1%) unpublished], six (0.9%) articles were included. Synthesis of all studies' results suggests a consensus recommendation for the Hyfin Vent Chest Seal and Russell Chest Seal. These two were the most effective chest seals, as previously investigated in a quantifiable, experimental study. CONCLUSION: While chest seals are recommended in civilian and military prehospital medicine to improve patient survival, current evidence concerning the individual device's efficacy is limited. Further scientific, quantitative research is needed to clarify which commercially available chest seals are most effective and provide patients with penetrating chest trauma the best possible method for preventing or mitigating tension pneumothoraces.