RESUMO
Background: As research becomes an increasingly important component of medical education, there is greater emphasis on incorporating programmatic enhancements to the research experience. This study builds a logic model to summarize research program inputs, outputs, and outcomes from research-oriented medical schools across the country, providing a framework that institutions can use to design and improve their medical student research training programs. Methods: Between November 2021 and February 2022, we administered a survey assessing institutional characteristics, research offerings, curriculum, funding, and student scholarly products to the medical schools ranked 1-50 in research in 2021 by US News and World Report. Results were compiled in the form of a logic model. Results: Thirty-seven institutions (72.5%) responded. Common program inputs included personnel such as at least one funded program director (97.3%), while funding for medical student research activities was highly variable (8-72%). There was much less funding for faculty research mentors (2.7%), advisors (18.9%), and teaching faculty (29.7%). Common outputs included a medical student research office or program (97.3%), formal research curricula (83.8%), and services and programs such as research day (91.9%). The most common outcomes tracked were publications (48.6%), presentations/posters (43.2%), student participation (29.7%), and completion of a research requirement (29.7%). Conclusions: Common themes in medical student research training programs may be conceptualized with a logic model that schools can use to develop, evaluate, and iteratively improve their programs. Institutions should consider their desired program outcomes prior to designing inputs (e.g., funding, personnel) and outputs (e.g., curriculum, training). Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-02001-3.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Treatment of acute ischemic stroke is challenging because it requires prompt management, interdisciplinary collaboration, and adherence to specific guidelines. This resource addresses these challenges by providing in situ simulated practice with stroke codes by practicing clinicians at unannounced times. METHODS: An emergency department team was presented with a 55-year-old simulated patient with speech difficulty and right-sided weakness. The team had to assess her efficiently and appropriately, including activating the stroke team via the hospital paging system. The stroke team responded to collaboratively coordinate evaluation, obtain appropriate imaging, administer thrombolytic therapy, and recognize the need for thrombectomy. Learners moved through the actual steps in the real clinical environment, using real hospital equipment. Upon simulation completion, debriefing was utilized to review the case and team performance. Latent safety threats were recorded, if present. Participants completed an evaluation to gauge the simulation's effectiveness. RESULTS: Six simulations involving 40 total participants were conducted and debriefed across New York City Health + Hospitals. One hundred percent of teams correctly identified the presenting condition and assessed eligibility for thrombolytic and endovascular therapy. Evaluations indicated that 100% of learners found the simulation to be an effective clinical, teamwork, and communication teaching tool. Debriefing captured several latent safety threats, which were rectified by collaboration with hospital leadership. DISCUSSION: Impromptu, in situ simulation helps develop interdisciplinary teamwork and clinical knowledge and is useful for reviewing crucial times and processes required for best-practice patient care. It is particularly useful when timely management is essential, as with acute ischemic stroke.
