Learning From Clinical Supervisor Practice Variability: Exploring Medical Resident and Fellow Experiences and Interpretations.

PURPOSE: Clinical practice variability is characterized by 2 or more clinicians making different treatment decisions despite encountering a similar case. This study explores how medical residents and fellows experience and interpret intersupervisor clinical practice variability and how these variations influence learning. METHOD: Seventeen senior residents or fellows in internal medicine, hematology, or thrombosis medicine (postgraduate year 3 or above) participated in semistructured interviews after a clinical rotation in thrombosis medicine from December 2019 to March 2021. Data collection and analysis occurred iteratively and concurrently in a manner consistent with constructivist grounded theory. Variation theory was used to guide the development of some interview questions. A central tenet of this theory is that learning occurs by experiencing 3 sequential patterns of variation: contrast, generalization, and fusion. Participants were recruited purposively with respect to specialty until theoretical sufficiency was reached. RESULTS: Clinical practice variability was experienced by all participants. Residents and fellows attributed practice variability to intrinsic differences among supervisors; interinstitutional differences; selection and interpretation of evidence; patient preferences, priorities, and fears; and their own participation in the decision-making process. Clinical practice variability helped residents and fellows discern key features of cases that influenced decision-making (contrast), group similar cases so that the appropriate evidence could be applied (generalization), and develop attitudes consistent with providing individualized patient care (fusion). Observing practice variability was more helpful for fifth- and sixth-year residents and less helpful for third- and fourth-year residents. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice variability helped residents and fellows discern critical aspects, group similar patients, and practice individualized medicine. Future research should characterize how clinical practice variability influences learning across the spectrum of training, how supervisors could encourage learning from practice variability, and how curricula could be modified to allow learners greater opportunity to reflect on and consolidate the practice differences they observe.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19: March 2022 update on the use of anticoagulation in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related critical illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to January 2022). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 and May 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines. RESULTS: The panel made 1 additional recommendation: a conditional recommendation for the use of prophylactic-intensity over therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of thrombotic and bleeding risk. CONCLUSIONS: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19: January 2022 update on the use of therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation in acutely ill patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in making decisions about the use of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included patient representatives and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process and performed systematic evidence reviews (through November 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines. RESULTS: The panel made one additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of therapeutic-intensity over prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of risk of thrombosis and bleeding. The panel also noted that heparin (unfractionated or low molecular weight) may be preferred because of a preponderance of evidence with this class of anticoagulants. CONCLUSION: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19: July 2021 update on postdischarge thromboprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to March 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 1 additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation against the use of outpatient anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who are discharged from the hospital and who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE or another indication for anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: This recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials assessing the role of postdischarge thromboprophylaxis. Other key research priorities include better evidence on assessing risk of thrombosis and bleeding outcomes in patients with COVID-19 after hospital discharge.

Improving Medical Education in Hematology and Transfusion Medicine in Canada: Standards and Limitations.

The paradigm of medical education is evolving with the introduction of competency-based medical education (CBME) and it is crucial that residency programs adapt. In this paper, we provide an overview of the current status of medical education in Hematology in Canada including models of training, assessment methods, anticipated challenges, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. We will also discuss additional training that can be pursued after a Hematology residency, with a particular focus On Transfusion Medicine as it was one of the first programs to implement a competency-based curriculum. Finally, we explore the future directions of medical education in Hematology and Transfusion Medicine.

Effectiveness of therapeutic heparin versus prophylactic heparin on death, mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission in moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital: RAPID randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. SETTING: 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. PARTICIPANTS: 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). INTERVENTIONS: Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m2. At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19: May 2021 update on the use of intermediate-intensity anticoagulation in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related critical illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in making decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included 3 patient representatives and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process by performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 5 March 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update on guidelines published in February 2021. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 1 additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. CONCLUSIONS: This recommendation was based on low certainty in the evidence, which underscores the need for additional high-quality, randomized, controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in critically ill patients. Other key research priorities include better evidence regarding predictors of thrombosis and bleeding risk in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and the impact of nonanticoagulant therapies (eg, antiviral agents, corticosteroids) on thrombotic risk.

Heparin for Moderately Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Heparin, in addition to its anticoagulant properties, has anti-inflammatory and potential anti-viral effects, and may improve endothelial function in patients with Covid-19. Early initiation of therapeutic heparin could decrease the thrombo-inflammatory process, and reduce the risk of critical illness or death. METHODS: We randomly assigned moderately ill hospitalized ward patients admitted for Covid-19 with elevated D-dimer level to therapeutic or prophylactic heparin. The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: At 28 days, the primary composite outcome occurred in 37 of 228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin, and 52 of 237 patients (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 1.10; p=0.12). Four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin died compared with 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.22; 95%-CI, 0.07 to 0.65). The composite of all-cause mortality or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 (10.1%) in the therapeutic heparin group and 38 (16.0%) in the prophylactic heparin group (odds ratio, 0.59; 95%-CI, 0.34 to 1.02). Major bleeding occurred in 2 patients (0.9%) with therapeutic heparin and 4 patients (1.7%) with prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.52; 95%-CI, 0.09 to 2.85). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill ward patients with Covid-19 and elevated D-dimer level, therapeutic heparin did not significantly reduce the primary outcome but decreased the odds of death at 28 days. Trial registration numbers: NCT04362085 ; NCT04444700.

American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related critical illness and acute illness are associated with a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness and acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel and applied strict management strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The panel included 3 patient representatives. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 19 August 2020). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 2 recommendations. The panel issued conditional recommendations in favor of prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation over intermediate-intensity or therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness or acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations were based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation. They will be updated using a living recommendation approach as new evidence becomes available.

Choosing Words Wisely: Residents' Use of Rhetorical Appeals in Conversations About Unnecessary Tests.

PURPOSE: To characterize how residents employ rhetorical appeals (i.e., the strategic use of communication to achieve specifiable goals) when discussing unnecessary diagnostic tests with patients. METHOD: In 2015, senior hematology residents from 10 Canadian universities participating in a national formative objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) completed a resource stewardship communication station. In this communication scenario, a standardized patient (SP) portrayed a patient requesting unnecessary thrombophilia testing following early pregnancy loss. The authors performed a thematic analysis of audio transcripts using a qualitative description approach to identify residents' rhetorical appeals to logic (rational appeals), credibility, and emotion. RESULTS: For persuasive communication, residents (n = 27) relied primarily on rational appeals that fit into 3 categories (with themes) focused on medical evidence (poor utility, professional guidelines and recommendations), avoidance of harm (insurance implications, unnecessary or potentially harmful interventions, patient anxiety), and reassurance to patient (normalizing, clinical pretest probability, criteria for reconsidering testing). Appeals to credibility and emotion were rarely used. CONCLUSIONS: In an OSCE setting, residents relied predominantly on rational appeals when engaging SPs in conversations about unnecessary tests. These observations yield insights into how recent emphasis within residency education on appropriate test utilization may manifest when residents put recommendations into practice in conversations with patients. This study's framework of rational appeals may be helpful in designing communication curricula about unnecessary testing. Future studies should explore rhetoric about unnecessary testing in the clinical environment, strategies to teach and coach residents leading these conversations, and patients' preferences and responses to different appeals.

Window to the Unknown: Using Storytelling to Identify Learning Needs for the Intrinsic Competencies Within an Online Needs Assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Needs assessments are important for developing online educational resources, but they frequently do not capture learning needs in the intrinsic physician competencies. Storytelling exercises, by promoting critical reflection and emphasizing values and context, may assist curriculum developers in identifying emergent knowledge gaps in these areas that are initially unknown to learners. METHODS: We developed an online curriculum for thrombosis and hemostasis based on an open-access online needs assessment comprised of a topic list, case scenarios, and storytelling exercise. In the storytelling exercise, learners described 1) a difficult clinical case and 2) why that case was difficult. In this qualitative descriptive study, we performed a secondary thematic analysis of this storytelling data, coded for the CanMEDS 2015 intrinsic roles. Two investigators independently coded transcripts with iterative comparison. RESULTS: A total of 143 respondents completed the storytelling exercise. All responses yielded a gap in medical expertise, while 25 (17.5%) described an additional intrinsic role. Learning needs in all six intrinsic roles were identified. The most commonly cited learning needs were in the leader (recognizing how resource allocation impacts health care), communicator (communicating knowledge with patients), and collaborator (unclear communication between providers) roles. These excerpts were notable for how they expressed the complexity and affective components of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Storytelling exercises can highlight context, attitudes, and relationships that provide depth to needs assessments. These narratives are a novel method of identifying gaps in intrinsic physician competencies that are initially unknown by learners (Johari window). These emergent intrinsic learning needs may be used to enrich learner-centered curricula.

The Massive Online Needs Assessment (MONA) to inform the development of an emergency haematology educational blog series.

BACKGROUND: Online educational resources are criticized as being teacher-centred, failing to address learner's needs. Needs assessments are an important precursor to inform curriculum development, but these are often overlooked or skipped by developers of online educational resources due to cumbersome measurement tools. Novel methods are required to identify perceived and unperceived learning needs to allow targeted development of learner-centred curricula. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of performing a novel technique dubbed the Massive Online Needs Assessment (MONA) for the purpose of emergency haematology online educational curricular planning, within an online learning community (affiliated with the Free Open Access Medical education movement). METHODS: An online survey was launched on CanadiEM.org using an embedded Google Forms survey. Participants were recruited using the study website and a social media campaign (utilizing Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, and a poster) targeting a specific online community. Web analytics were used to monitor participation rates in addition to survey responses. RESULTS: The survey was open from 20 September to 10 December 2016 and received 198 complete responses representing 6 medical specialties from 21 countries. Most survey respondents identified themselves as staff physicians (n = 109) and medical trainees (n = 75). We identified 17 high-priority perceived needs, 17 prompted needs, and 10 topics with unperceived needs through our MONA process. CONCLUSIONS: A MONA is a feasible, novel method for collecting data on perceived, prompted, and unperceived learning needs to inform an online emergency haematology educational blog. This methodology could be useful to the developers of other online education resources.

Value Based Care and Patient-Centered Care: Divergent or Complementary?

Two distinct but overlapping care philosophies have emerged in cancer care: patient-centered care (PCC) and value-based care (VBC). Value in healthcare has been defined as the quality of care (measured typically by healthcare outcomes) modified by cost. In this conception of value, patient-centeredness is one important but not necessarily dominant quality measure. In contrast, PCC includes multiple domains of patient-centeredness and places the patient and family central to all decisions and evaluations of quality. The alignment of PCC and VBC is complicated by several tensions, including a relative lack of patient experience and preference measures, and conceptions of cost that are payer-focused instead of patient-focused. Several strategies may help to align these two philosophies, including the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and value determinations, and the purposeful integration of patient preference in clinical decisions and guidelines. Innovative models of care, including accountable care organizations and oncology patient-centered medical homes, may also facilitate alignment through improved care coordination and quality-based payment incentives. Ultimately, VBC and PCC will only be aligned if patient-centered outcomes, perspectives, and preferences are explicitly incorporated into the definitions and metrics of quality, cost, and value that will increasingly influence the delivery of cancer care.