The language of less-lethal weapons.

It has been over 1 year since we observed the policing of the George Floyd protests in the United States [R. R. Hardeman, E. M. Medina, R. W. Boyd, N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 197-199 (2020)]. Multiple injury reports emerged in medical journals, and the scientific community called for law enforcement to discontinue the use of less-lethal weapons [E. A. Kaske et al., N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 774-775 (2021) and K. A. Olson et al., N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 1081-1083 (2020)]. Despite progress in research, policy change has not followed a similar pace. Although the reasoning for this discrepancy is multifactorial, failure to use appropriate language may be one contributing factor to the challenges faced in updating policies and practices. Here, we detail how language has the potential to influence thinking and decision-making, we discuss how the language of less-lethal weapons minimizes harm, and we provide a framework for naming conventions that acknowledges harm.

Dermatology Life Quality Index survey in patients with Down syndrome and caregivers.

Down syndrome (DS) is associated with many dermatological conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa, folliculitis, and alopecia areata. Despite the high incidence of skin conditions in this population, there are no quality of life (QoL) studies in the dermatology literature focused on patients with DS or their caregivers. The frequently used QoL assessment tool, the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), has yet to be studied in this population. This study addresses these disparities by capturing how various skin conditions affect the QoL of people with DS and their caregivers and assessing the utility of the DLQI.

Bias and Conflict of Interest in the Underreporting of Sexual Abuse in Competitive Sports: A Literature Review.

ABSTRACT: The prevalence of sexual abuse in competitive sports is increasing worldwide and requires a united call to action. The underreporting of such abuses gained media attention resulting from recent high-profile cases. In this article, we report the results of a systematic literature review, identifying root causes of underreporting sexual abuse in competitive sports. We identify that biases and conflicts of interest work against effective reporting of abuse by athletes at the individual, organizational, and cultural levels. We offer conflict of interest and bias mitigation approaches from the social science, law, business, research, and diagnostic error literature that may apply. Competitive sports organizations may use this analysis to identify barriers and improve the effective reporting of sexual abuse.

"An epoch-making and blessed moment in the history of medicine" -thoughts on international health equity and the Nobel prize in medicine.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is a prestigious award given every year for ostensibly the most important discovery in the field. Prizes in Medicine have typically gone to honor foundational knowledge rather than measurable impact. Two recent examples from global health (a rotavirus vaccine, child growth standards) offer alternatives for what might be lauded in medicine. These two examples and historical achievements regarding cholera and smallpox are worthy but do not fall within the scope of Nobel awards for Peace or Economics. The COVID-19 pandemic gives a new context for the idea that discovery and implementation are both keys to medicine. New patterns that redefine achievement in medicine could emerge by Nobel Prize precedent to promote greater health equity and international collaboration.

Diverse community leaders' perspectives about quality primary healthcare and healthcare measurement: Qualitative community-based participatory research.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare quality measurements in the United States illustrate disparities by racial/ethnic group, socio-economic class, and geographic location. Redressing healthcare inequities, including measurement of and reimbursement for healthcare quality, requires partnering with communities historically excluded from decision-making. Quality healthcare is measured according to insurers, professional organizations and government agencies, with little input from diverse communities. This community-based participatory research study aimed to amplify the voices of community leaders from seven diverse urban communities in Minneapolis-Saint Paul Minnesota, view quality healthcare and financial reimbursement based on quality metric scores. METHODS: A Community Engagement Team consisting of one community member from each of seven urban communities -Black/African American, Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer-Two Spirit, Hmong, Latino/a/x, Native American, Somali, and White-and two community-based researchers conducted listening sessions with 20 community leaders about quality primary healthcare. Transcripts were inductively analyzed and major themes were identified. RESULTS: Listening sessions produced three major themes, with recommended actions for primary care clinics. #1: Quality Clinics Utilize Structures and Processes that Support Healthcare Equity. #2: Quality Clinics Offer Effective Relationships, Education, and Health Promotion. #3: Funding Based on Current Quality Measures Perpetuates Health Inequities. CONCLUSION: Community leaders identified ideal characteristics of quality primary healthcare, most of which are not currently measured. They expressed concern that linking clinic payment with quality metrics without considering social and structural determinants of health perpetuates social injustice in healthcare.

Primary care clinicians' perspectives about quality measurements in safety-net clinics and non-safety-net clinics.

BACKGROUND: Quality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes. RESULTS: Three themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity. CONCLUSION: Aligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.

Developing a Medical School Curriculum on Racism: Multidisciplinary, Multiracial Conversations Informed by Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP).

Background: To fight racism and its potential influence on health, health care professionals must recognize, name, understand and talk about racism. These conversations are difficult, particularly when stakes feel high-in the workplace and in interracial groups. We convened a multidisciplinary, multi-racial group of professionals in two phases of this exploratory project to develop and pilot an intervention to promote effective dialogues on racism for first year medical students at the University of Minnesota Medical School. Methods: Informed by a Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) methodology in Phase I, initial content was developed by a group of seven women primarily from racial and ethnic minority groups. In a later phase, they joined with five White (primarily male) colleagues to discuss racism and race. Participants met monthly for 12 months from Jan 2016-Dec 2016. All participants were recruited by study PI. An inductive approach was used to analyze meeting notes and post intervention reflections to describe lessons learned from the process of employing a PHCRP methodology to develop the aforementioned curriculum with a multidisciplinary and multi-racial group of professionals dedicated to advancing conversations on racial equity. Results: Participants from Phase I described the early meetings as "powerful," allowing them to "bring their full selves" to a project that convened individuals who are often marginalized in their professional environments. In Phase II, which included White colleagues, the dynamics shifted: "…the voices from Phase I became quieter…"; "I had to put on my armor and fight in those later meetings…". Conclusions: The process of employing PHCRP in the development of an intervention about racism led to new insights on what it means to discuss racism among those marginalized and those with privilege. Conversations in each phase yielded new insights and strategies to advance a conversation about racism in health care.

It's a spiral staircase, not just two steps: An iterative approach to assessing patient capacity for medical decision-making.

The assessment of medical decision-making capacity as part of the process of clinical informed consent has been considered a bioethical housekeeping matter for decades. Yet in practice, the reality bears little resemblance to what is described in the medical literature and professed in medical education. Most literature on informed consent refers to medical decision-making capacity as a precondition to the consent process. That is, a clinician must first determine if a patient has capacity, and only then may the clinician engage with the patient for the rest of informed consent. The problem with this two-step approach is that it makes no sense in actual practice. We see the assessment of medical decision-making capacity within the process of informed consent as a spiral staircase, not just two steps, requiring clinicians to keep circling up and around, making progress, until they get to where they need to be: 1. Clinicians start with a general presumption of capacity for most adults, sometimes having a provisional appraisal of capacity based on prior patient contact. 2. Then, they begin performing informed consent for the current situation and intervention options. 3. Next, they must reassess capacity during this process. 4. After that, they continue with informed consent. 5. If capacity is not yet clear, they repeat 1-4.

Academic and Wellness Outcomes Associated with use of Anki Spaced Repetition Software in Medical School.

OBJECTIVES: Medical students are increasingly using a spaced repetition software called Anki to study. There are limited studies evaluating the relationship between Anki and learner outcomes. In this study, we describe the history of Anki use in medical school and assess the potential relationships between use of Anki and medical student academic, extracurricular, and wellness outcomes. METHODS: We used cross-sectional data from a 50-item online survey and retrospective academic performance data from our institution's outcomes database. Participants were medical students. The survey assessed the frequency and timing of Anki use, student perceived stress, sleep quality, burnout risk, and involvement in extracurricular activities. Academic success was measured by USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 scores. RESULTS: 165 students responded survey. 92 (56%) identified as daily Anki users. Daily Anki use was correlated with increased Step 1 score (P = .039), but not Step 2 scores. There was an association between Anki use and increased sleep quality (P = .01), but no difference for other measurements of wellness or extracurricular involvement. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates potential benefits of daily use of Anki but also confirms that a variety of study methods can be used to achieve similar medical school outcomes.

How Does Cognitive Bias Affect Conversations With Patients About Dietary Supplements?

Many patients use dietary supplements but do not inform their clinicians. Some allopathic clinicians' conscious and unconscious cognitive and emotional biases against complementary and alternative medicine can affect whether patients disclose details about dietary supplement use, the quality of communication during clinical encounters, and the information clinicians draw upon to make decisions and recommendations. This article describes 6 cognitive biases that can influence patient-clinician communication and shared decision making about dietary supplements and suggests 6 ways to mitigate biases' negative effects on patient-clinician relationships.

PRescribing Interventions for Chronic pain using the Electronic health record (PRINCE): Study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is a frequent source of pain treatment and opioid prescribing. The objective of the Prescribing Interventions for Chronic Pain using the Electronic health record (PRINCE) study is to assess the effects of two behavioral economics-informed interventions embedded within the electronic health record (EHR) on guideline-concordant pain treatment and opioid prescribing decisions in primary care settings. METHODS: Setting: The setting for this study is 43 primary care clinics in Minnesota. DESIGN: The PRINCE study uses a cluster-randomized 2 × 2 factorial design to test the effects of two interventions. An adaptive design allows for the possibility of secondary randomization to test if interventions can be titrated while maintaining efficacy. INTERVENTIONS: One intervention alters the "choice architecture" within the EHR to nudge clinicians toward non-opioid treatments for opioid-naïve patients and toward tapering for patients currently receiving a "high risk" opioid. The other intervention integrates the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) directly within the EHR. OUTCOME: The primary outcome for opioid-naïve patients is whether an opioid is prescribed in a primary care visit without a non-opioid alternative pain treatment. The primary outcome for current opioid-using patients is whether opioid prescriptions were tapered with a documented rationale. DISCUSSION: The PRINCE study will provide real-world evidence on two approaches to improving pain treatment in primary care using the EHR. The adaptive study design strikes a balance between establishing intervention efficacy and testing whether efficacy varies with intervention intensity.

The Consent Continuum: A New Model of Consent, Assent, and Nondissent for Primary Care.

The practice around informed consent in clinical medicine is both inconsistent and inadequate. Indeed, in busy, contemporary health care settings, getting informed consent looks little like the formal process developed over the past sixty years and presented in medical textbooks, journal articles, and academic lectures. In this article, members of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) Collaborative on Ethics and Humanities review the conventional process of informed consent and its limitations, explore complementary and alternative approaches to doctor-patient interactions, and propose a new model of consent that integrates these approaches with each other and with clinical practice. The model assigns medical interventions to a consent continuum defined by the discrete categories of traditional informed consent, assent, and nondissent. Narrative descriptions and clinical exemplars are offered for each category. The authors invite colleagues from other disciplines and from the academic ethics community to provide feedback and commentary.

Race and Gender Differences in Medical Student Perspectives on Social Determinants of Health Education: A Single-Institution Survey Study.

PURPOSE: The field of medicine is becoming increasingly aware of the role that social determinants of health (SDH) play in shaping health and health outcomes. Organized medicine - including prominent physician groups and accreditation bodies - has endorsed SDH education as an integral component of medical school curricula. This study sought to describe medical student perspectives on the current state of SDH in preclinical curricula. METHODS: The authors developed a 9-item survey to assess time being spent on SDH and attitudes toward the current level of SDH content in preclinical curricula. All medical students at both campuses of a large public medical school were invited to participate between December 2019 and February 2020. RESULTS: Of 1010 medical students invited to participate, 515 (51.0%) responded. Of the 515 respondents, 480 (93.2%) reported spending at least 40 hours per week on medical school, and of those, 405 (84.4%) said they spend 0-2 hours on SDH. The majority of all respondents (62.1%; 320/515) felt the current level of focus on SDH is "not enough", while only eleven students (2.1%; 11/515) felt it is "too much". In a multiple logistic model, Black students were over four times as likely as white students (aOR 4.19; 95% CI 1.37-18.38) to feel the current level of focus on SDH is "not enough". Likewise, women were 2.3-times (aOR 2.30; 95% CI 1.52-3.49) as likely as men to feel the level of focus on SDH is "not enough". CONCLUSION: In practice, medical students are spending considerably less time learning SDH than is advised by consensus of expert educators and administrators. Over sixty percent of medical students do not feel the current level of focus on SDH is sufficient. Further study is needed to determine why women and racial minority students are significantly more likely to feel this way.