Implementation of a Novel Medical School Multidisciplinary and Interprofessional Oncology Curriculum: a Mixed Method Study.

As the population of patients with cancer and survivors grows, physician knowledge of oncology clinical care and research is increasingly important. Despite this patient population growth, medical students and non-oncology physicians report insufficient oncologic and survivorship care training. First-year students at a single US medical school completing a summer research experience were invited to participate in integrated Scholars in Oncology-Associated Research (SOAR) program. SOAR seeks to broaden students' understanding of multidisciplinary and interprofessional oncology clinical care and research. SOAR consists of three components: structured didactics, multidisciplinary tumor board attendance, and interprofessional shadowing. A mixed-methods approach investigated whether student knowledge improved after SOAR. Thirty-three students enrolled in SOAR (20 in 2015, 13 in 2016) and completed pre-assessments. Twenty-five (75.8%) students completed SOAR and post-assessments. Self-reported understanding of clinical (2[2, 3] vs. 4[4], p < 0.01) and research oncology (2[2, 3] vs. 4[4], p < 0.01) improved after SOAR. Understanding of individual disciplines also significantly improved. When describing clinical oncology, responses written post-SOAR were more comprehensive, averaging 3.7 themes per response vs. 2.8 on pre-assessments (p = 0.03). There were more references to "survivorship" as a component of oncology on post-assessments (0[0.0%] vs. 7[28.0%], p < 0.01) and "screening/prevention" (2[6.1%] vs. 7[28.0%], p = 0.03). Additionally, students more often described cancer care as a continuum on post-assessments (4[12.1%] vs. 11[44.0%], p = 0.01). A structured didactic and experiential introduction to oncology, SOAR, was successfully piloted. SOAR improved participant understanding of oncology and its distinct clinical and research disciplines. Future work will focus on expanding SOAR into a longitudinal oncology curriculum.

Assessment of patient perceptions of genomic testing to inform pharmacogenomic implementation.

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacogenomics seeks to improve prescribing by reducing drug inefficacy/toxicity. However, views of patients during pharmacogenomic-guided care are largely unknown. We sought to understand the attitudes and perceptions of patients in an institutional implementation project and hypothesized that views would differ on the basis of experience with pharmacogenomic-guided care. METHODS: Two focus groups were conducted - one group included patients who had previously been subjected to broad pharmacogenomic genotyping with results available to physicians (pharmacogenomic group), whereas the other had not been offered genotyping (traditional care). Five domains were explored: (i) experiences with medications/side effects, (ii) understanding of pharmacogenomics, (iii) impact of pharmacogenomics on relationships with healthcare professionals, (iv) scenarios involving pharmacogenomic-guided prescribing, and (v) responses to pharmacogenomic education materials. RESULTS: Nine pharmacogenomic and 13 traditional care participants were included. Participants in both groups agreed that pharmacogenomics could inform prescribing and help identify problem prescriptions, but expressed concerns over insurance coverage and employment discrimination. Both groups diverged on who should be permitted to access pharmacogenomic results, with some preferring access only for providers with a longstanding relationship, whereas others argued for open access. Notably, traditional care participants showed greater skepticism about how results might be used. Case scenarios and tested educational materials elicited strong desires on the part of patients for physicians to engage participants when considering pharmacogenomic-based prescribing and to utilize shared decision-making. CONCLUSION: Participants experiencing pharmacogenomic-guided care were more receptive toward pharmacogenomic information being used than traditional care participants. As key stakeholders in implementation, addressing patients' concerns will be important to successfully facilitate clinical dissemination.

Objective Evaluation of a Didactic Curriculum for the Radiation Oncology Medical Student Clerkship.

PURPOSE: A structured didactic radiation oncology clerkship curriculum for medical students is in use at multiple academic medical centers. Objective evidence supporting this educational approach over the traditional clerkship model is lacking. This study evaluated the curriculum efficacy using an objective knowledge assessment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Medical students received the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) curriculum consisting of 3 lectures (Overview of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Biology/Physics, and Practical Aspects of Simulation/Radiation Emergencies) and a radiation oncology treatment-planning workshop. A standardized 20-item multiple choice question (MCQ) knowledge assessment was completed pre- and post-curriculum and approximately 6 months after receiving the curriculum. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six students at 22 academic medical centers completed the ROECSG curriculum from July to November 2016. One hundred nine students completed pre- and post-clerkship MCQ knowledge assessments (response rate 74.7%). Twenty-four students reported a prior rotation at a ROECSG institution and were excluded from analysis. Mean assessment scores increased from pre- to post-curriculum (63.9% vs 80.2%, P < .01). Mean MCQ knowledge subdomain assessment scores all improved post-curriculum (t test, P values < .01). Post-scores for students rotating de novo at ROECSG institutions (n = 30) were higher compared with pre-scores for students with ≥1 prior rotations at non-ROECSG institutions (n = 55) (77.3% vs 68.8%, P = .01), with an effect size of 0.8. Students who completed rotations at ROECSG institutions continued to demonstrate a trend toward improved performance on the objective knowledge assessment at approximately 6 months after curriculum exposure (70.5% vs 65.6%, P = .11). CONCLUSIONS: Objective evaluation of a structured didactic curriculum for the radiation oncology clerkship at early and late time points demonstrated significant improvement in radiation oncology knowledge. Students who completed clerkships at ROECSG institutions performed objectively better than students who completed clerkships at non-ROECSG institutions. These results support including a structured didactic curriculum as a standard component of the radiation oncology clerkship.

Analysis of Patients with Ventricular Assist Devices Presenting to an Urban Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) insertion is an increasingly common intervention for patients with advanced heart failure; however, published literature on the emergency department (ED) presentation of this population is limited. The objective of this study was to characterize ED presentations of patients with LVADs with a focus on device-specific complications to inform provider education and preparation initiatives. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of all patients with LVADs followed at an urban academic medical center presenting to the ED over a five-year period (July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2014). Two abstractors reviewed 45 randomly selected charts to standardize the abstraction process and establish a priori categories for reason for presentation to the ED. Remaining charts were then divided evenly for review by one of the two abstractors. Primary outcomes for this study were (1) frequency of and (2) reason for presentation to the ED by patients with LVADs. RESULTS: Of 349 patients with LVADs identified, 143 (41.0%) had ED encounters during the study period. There were 620 total ED encounters, (range 1 to 32 encounters per patient, median=3, standard deviation=5.3). Among the encounters, 431 (69.5%) resulted in admission. The most common reasons for presentation were bleeding (e.g., gastrointestinal, epistaxis) (182, 29.4%); infection (127, 20.5%); heart failure exacerbation (68, 11.0%); pain (56, 9.0%); other (45, 7.3%); and arrhythmias (40, 6.5%). Fifty-two encounters (8.4%) were device-specific; these patients frequently presented with abnormal device readings (37, 6.0%). Interventions for device-specific presentations included anticoagulation regimen adjustment (16/52, 30.8%), pump exchange (9, 17.3%), and hardware repair (6, 11.5%). Pump thrombosis occurred in 23 cases (3.7% of all encounters). No patients required cardiopulmonary resuscitation or died in the ED. CONCLUSION: This is the largest study known to the investigators to report the rate of ED presentations of patients with LVADs and provide analysis of device-specific presentations. In patients who do have device-specific ED presentations, pump thrombosis is a common diagnosis and can present without device alarms. Specialized LVAD education and preparation initiatives for ED providers should emphasize the recognition and management of the most common and critical conditions for this patient population, which have been identified in this study as bleeding, infection, heart failure, and pump thrombosis.

Simulation as More Than a Treatment-Planning Tool: A Systematic Review of the Literature on Radiation Oncology Simulation-Based Medical Education.

PURPOSE: Simulation-based medical education (SBME) is gaining prominence as a tool to meet Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-mandated competency-based assessment educational goals. SBME is used in radiation oncology, although the type and extent are not clear. This study reports a systematic literature review designed to clarify the type and extent of radiation oncology SBME. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The systematic review focused on radiation oncology SBME literature. The methods followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The inclusion criteria were identified according to the PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and setting) framework. The population included undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education learners. Studies were limited to English-language studies published on or after January 1, 1990, in peer-reviewed journals. PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and in-press articles were searched. The PubMed search was conducted using predefined search terms. References and similar articles were examined. Medical Subject Headings terms in selected articles were reviewed to ensure relevant terms were included. RESULTS: Fifty-four SBME publications met the inclusion criteria. Only 9 of 54 studies (17%) self-identified as SBME. SBME types included screen-based simulators (56%), simulated environments (13%), virtual reality and haptic systems (13%), simulated patients (11%), part-task trainers (6%), and computer-based systems with mannequins (2%). A variety of radiation oncology skill sets were addressed, including contouring (54%), treatment planning (20%), clinical decision making (17%), anatomy and/or radiology (13%), radiation biology and/or physics (13%), communication skills and/or patient education (13%), brachytherapy (13%), and immobilization (11%). A target learning population was defined in 47 studies, including residents (53%), attending physicians (36%), medical students (21%), medical physicists (11%), radiation therapists (9%), nurses (6%), administrative staff (4%), and dosimetrists (4%). Learner feedback was reported in 32 studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this systematic literature review provides context and guidance for future radiation oncology SBME development. Appropriately framing SBME reports in the radiation oncology literature will facilitate development, implementation, and evaluation of SBME interventions. SBME resources should be centralized to facilitate dissemination and share resources.