scholarly journals Interns' Experiences of Disruptive Behavior in an Academic Medical Center

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles P. Mullan ◽  
Jo Shapiro ◽  
Graham T. McMahon
Keyword(s):  
Disruptive Behavior ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Hospital Environment ◽  
First Year ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Attending Physicians

Abstract Background The first year of graduate medical education is an important period in the professional development of physicians. Disruptive behavior interferes with safe and effective clinical practice. Objective To determine the frequency and nature of disruptive behavior perceived by interns and attending physicians in a teaching hospital environment. Method All 516 interns at Partners HealthCare (Boston, MA) during the 2010 and 2011 academic years were eligible to complete an anonymous questionnaire. A convenience nonrandom sample of 40 attending physicians also participated. Results A total of 394 of 516 eligible interns (76.4%) participated. Attendings and interns each reported that their team members generally behaved professionally (87.5% versus 80.4%, respectively). A significantly greater proportion of attendings than interns felt respected at work (90.0% versus 71.5% respectively; P  =  .01). Disruptive behavior was experienced by 93% of interns; 54% reported that they experienced it once a month or more. Interns reported disruptive behavior significantly more frequently than attending physicians, including increased reports of condescending behavior (odds ratio [OR], 5.46 for interns compared with attendings; P < .001), exclusion from decision making (OR, 6.97; P < .001), and berating (OR, 4.84; P  =  .02). Inappropriate jokes, abusive language, and gender bias were also reported, and they were not significantly more frequent among interns than attending physicians. Interns most frequently identified nurses as the source of disruption, and were significantly more likely than faculty to identify nurses as the source of disruptive behavior (OR, 10.40; P < .001). Attendings reported other physicians as the most frequent source of disruption. Conclusions Although interns generally feel respected at work, they frequently experience disruptive behavior. Interns described more disruptive behaviors than a convenience sample of attending physicians at our institution.

scholarly journals 164. Avoiding Complacency: Assessing the Perceived Impact and Value of Antimicrobial Stewardship at a Academic Medical Center

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S90-S91
Author(s):  
Matthew S Lee ◽  
Christopher McCoy
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Support Tools ◽  
Educational Engagement ◽  
Similar Survey ◽  
Perceived Impact

Abstract Background Multi-disciplinary engagement and education remain key measures for Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs). Over 3 years, our ASP has undergone key changes to pre-authorization review, post-prescriptive activities, and core team members, coinciding with a 30% increase in stewardship interventions. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the familiarity of Nursing, Pharmacy and Prescribers at our academic medical center regarding ASP activities and services, as well as perceived impact on patient care and value. Secondary objectives were to determine what resources are currently utilized and areas for improvement. Methods Distinct surveys were distributed to three participant groups: Nurses, Pharmacists, and Prescribers (Housestaff, Advanced Practice Providers, and staff physicians). Questions were developed to assess familiarity, perceived value, and overall satisfaction with the ASP. Additional items included questions on the current use of ASP resources and educational engagement. Survey results were compared to a similar survey conducted 3 years amongst the same participant groups. Results The survey was delivered electronically to 3367 Prescribers, Nurses and Pharmacists. 403 responders completed the survey (208 Nurses, 181 Prescribers, and 18 Pharmacists). Familiarity was lowest amongst Nurses, but almost doubled compared to 2016 (Figure). Prescribers cited “restricted antibiotic approval”, “de-escalation”, and “alternative therapies relative to allergies” as the three most common interaction types, similar to 2016. ASP interactions continued to be rated “moderate” or “high” value (88.4% vs 89.15% in 2016), however, face-to-face interactions were preferred by only 4% of responders (unchanged compared to 2016). Prescribers also responded uncommon use of ASP online resources (20%) and clinical decision support tools (34%). 78% of responders expressed desire for increased ASP-related education. Conclusion As ASPs evolve, it is important to constantly evaluate impact and value, and identify areas for growth. Despite ASP familiarity being high and interactions valued, we need to further optimize ASP provided resources, clinical support tools, and educational offerings. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Implementation of a pharmacist-provided pharmacogenomics service in an executive health program

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ina Liko ◽  
Lisa Corbin ◽  
Eric Tobin ◽  
Christina L Aquilante ◽  
Yee Ming Lee
Keyword(s):  
Health Program ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Team Members ◽  
University Of Colorado ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Previous Medication ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose We describe the implementation of a pharmacist-provided pharmacogenomics (PGx) service in an executive health program (EHP) at an academic medical center. Summary As interest in genomic testing grows, pharmacists have the opportunity to advance the use of PGx in EHPs, in collaboration with other healthcare professionals. In November 2018, a pharmacist-provided PGx service was established in the EHP at the University of Colorado Hospital. The team members included 3 physicians, a pharmacist trained in PGx, a registered dietitian/exercise physiologist, a nurse, and 2 medical assistants. We conducted 4 preimplementation steps: (1) assessment of the patient population, (2) selection of a PGx test, (3) establishment of a visit structure, and (4) selection of a billing model. The PGx consultations involved two 1-hour visits. The first visit encompassed pretest PGx education, review of the patient’s current medications and previous medication intolerances, and DNA sample collection for genotyping. After this visit, the pharmacist developed a therapeutic plan based on the PGx test results, discussed the results and plan with the physician, and created a personalized PGx report. At the second visit, the pharmacist reviewed the PGx test results, personalized the PGx report, and discussed the PGx-guided therapeutic plan with the patient. Overall, the strategy worked well; minor challenges included evaluation of gene-drug pairs with limited PGx evidence, communication of information to non-EHP providers, scheduling issues, and reimbursement. Conclusion The addition of a PGx service within an EHP was feasible and provided pharmacists the opportunity to lead PGx efforts and collaborate with physicians to expand the precision medicine footprint at an academic medical center.

Clinicians Are From Mars and Pathologists Are From Venus

2000 ◽  
Vol 124 (7) ◽  
pp. 1040-1046 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seth M. Powsner ◽  
José Costa ◽  
Robert J. Homer
Keyword(s):  
Medical Errors ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Potential Problem ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Open Book ◽  
Surgical Experience ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Pathology Reports ◽  
Attending Physicians

Abstract Context.—Text reports convey critical medical information from pathologists, radiologists, and subspecialty consultants. These reports must be clear and comprehensible to avoid medical errors. Pathologists have paid much attention to report completeness but have ignored the corresponding issue of report comprehension. This situation presents an increasingly serious potential problem. As laboratories are consolidated and as reports are disseminated in new ways (eg, via the World Wide Web), the target audience becomes more diverse and less likely to have any contact with pathologists beyond the written reports themselves. Objective.—To compare clinician comprehension with pathologist intent in written pathology reports. Methods.—Typical surgical pathology reports relevant to surgeons and covering a range of specimen complexity were taken from our hospital files. Questionnaires based on these cases were administered open-book-examination style to surgical attending physicians and trainees during surgical conferences at an academic medical center. Main Outcome Measures.—Scores from questionnaires. Results.—Surgeons misunderstood pathologists' reports 30% of the time. Surgical experience reduced but did not eliminate the problem. Streamlined report formatting exacerbated the problem. Conclusions.—A communication gap exists between pathologists and surgeons. Familiarity with report format and clinical experience help reduce this gap. Paradoxically, stylistic improvements to report formatting can interfere with comprehension and increase the number of misunderstandings. Further investigation is required to reduce the number of misunderstandings and, thus, medical errors.

scholarly journals The Procedure Coordinator: A Resident-Driven Initiative to Increase Opportunity for Inpatient Procedures

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 583-586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Gorgone ◽  
Brian McNichols ◽  
Valerie J. Lang ◽  
William Novak ◽  
Alec B. O'Connor
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Medical Providers ◽  
Procedural Training ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Attending Physician ◽  
Attending Physicians ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Training Opportunities

ABSTRACT Background  Training residents to become competent in common bedside procedures can be challenging. Some hospitals have attending physician–led procedure teams with oversight of all procedures to improve procedural training, but these teams require significant resources to establish and maintain. Objective  We sought to improve resident procedural training by implementing a resident-run procedure team without routine attending involvement. Methods  We created the role of a resident procedure coordinator (RPC). Interested residents on less time-intensive rotations voluntarily served as RPC. Medical providers in the hospital contacted the RPC through a designated pager when a bedside procedure was needed. A structured credentialing process, using direct observation and a procedure-specific checklist, was developed to determine residents' competence for completing procedures independently. Checklists were developed by the residency program and approved by institutional subspecialists. The service was implemented in June 2016 at an 850-bed academic medical center with 70 internal medicine and 32 medicine-pediatrics residents. The procedure service functioned without routine attending involvement. The impact was evaluated through resident procedure logs and surveys of residents and attending physicians. Results  Compared with preimplementation procedure logs, there were substantial increases postimplementation in resident-performed procedures and the number of residents credentialed in paracenteses, thoracenteses, and lumbar punctures. Fifty-nine of 102 (58%) residents responded to the survey, with 42 (71%) reporting the initiative increased their ability to obtain procedural experience. Thirty-one of 36 (86%) attending respondents reported preferentially using the service. Conclusions  The RPC model increased resident procedural training opportunities using a structured sign-off process and an operationalized service.

scholarly journals Supporting researchers through full-service hotline and consultation services: Success in simplicity, customization, and staffing

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-7
Author(s):  
Rebecca Namenek Brouwer ◽  
Emily Miller ◽  
Sunita Patil ◽  
Geeta K. Swamy ◽  
Rebbecca Moen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Team Members ◽  
School Of Medicine ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
High Satisfaction ◽  
Duke University ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
New Research ◽  
Consultation Services

AbstractNavigating the research domain at an academic medical center can be challenging, even for seasoned investigators. To address this, Duke University launched two initiatives: (1) a research navigation “hotline” to provide brief assistance with a variety of research questions; and (2) researcher onboarding and consultation, a one-to-one tailored offering to ensure that researchers are equipped to navigate research resources and processes effectively. The services are provided by the myRESEARCHnavigators (MRN) team, funded by Duke’s CTSA. The diverse scientific backgrounds of the six team members align well with those of the research community, allowing for a good match between the researcher and MRN team member. The MRN team answers approximately 30 questions per month, and has provided consultations to almost 400 researchers. Both services receive high satisfaction ratings (4 or 5 stars [out of 5 stars] given to 90% of hotline answers, and 99% of researcher onboarding/consultation sessions). As of July 2019, the School of Medicine has determined that the consultations are critical to their mission and have made them a requirement for new research faculty. The team will continue marketing both services to encourage adoption.

scholarly journals Estimated SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Children and Adolescents in Mississippi, May Through September 2020

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte V. Hobbs ◽  
Jan Drobeniuc ◽  
Theresa Kittle ◽  
John Williams ◽  
Paul Byers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Laboratory Testing ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Seroprevalence Data ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Hispanic White

AbstractCase-based tracking of COVID-19 in children and adolescents may underestimate infection, and compared with adults there is little pediatric SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data. To assess evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections among children and adolescents in Mississippi, serologic testing for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was conducted on a convenience sample of residual serum specimens collected for routine laboratory testing by an academic medical center laboratory during May 17 through September 19, 2020. Seroprevalence by calendar month was standardized to the state population by race/ethnicity; cumulative numbers of infections were estimated by extrapolating seroprevalence to all those aged <18 years in Mississippi. Serum specimens from 1,603 individuals were tested; 175 (10.9%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Among 1,579 (98.5%) individuals for whom race/ethnicity was known, the number testing positive was 16 (23.2%) of 69 Hispanic individuals, 117 (13.0%) of 901 non-Hispanic Black individuals and 30 (5.3%) of 565 non-Hispanic White individuals. Population-weighted seroprevalence estimates among those aged <18 years increased from 2.6% in May to 16.9% in September 2020. Cumulative numbers of infections extrapolated from seroprevalence data, however, were estimated at 117,805 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 68,771–168,708), suggesting that cases in children and adolescents are much higher than what was reported to the Mississippi State Department of Health (9,044 cases during this period). Further data to appreciate the burden of pediatric disease to inform public health policy is urgently needed.

scholarly journals Implementation of a medical student-run telemedicine program for medications for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Castillo ◽  
Brianna Conte ◽  
Sam Hinkes ◽  
Megan Mathew ◽  
C. J. Na ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Student ◽  
People Who Inject Drugs ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Life Saving ◽  
Attending Physicians

Abstract Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic led to the closure of the IDEA syringe services program medical student-run free clinic in Miami, Florida. In an effort to continue to serve the community of people who inject drugs and practice compassionate and non-judgmental care, the students transitioned the clinic to a model of TeleMOUD (medications for opioid use disorder). We describe development and implementation of a medical student-run telemedicine clinic through an academic medical center-operated syringe services program. Methods Students advertised TeleMOUD services at the syringe service program on social media and created an online sign-up form. They coordinated appointments and interviewed patients by phone or videoconference where they assessed patients for opioid use disorder. Supervising attending physicians also interviewed patients and prescribed buprenorphine when appropriate. Students assisted patients in obtaining medication from the pharmacy and provided support and guidance during home buprenorphine induction. Results Over the first 9 weeks in operation, 31 appointments were requested, and 22 initial telehealth appointments were completed by a team of students and attending physicians. Fifteen appointments were for MOUD and 7 for other health issues. All patients seeking MOUD were prescribed buprenorphine and 12/15 successfully picked up medications from the pharmacy. The mean time between appointment request and prescription pick-up was 9.5 days. Conclusions TeleMOUD is feasible and successful in providing people who inject drugs with low barrier access to life-saving MOUD during the COVID-19 pandemic. This model also provided medical students with experience treating addiction during a time when they were restricted from most clinical activities.

Communication about opioid versus nonopioid analgesics in the emergency department

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle M. McCarthy, MD, MS ◽  
Kenzie A. Cameron, PhD, MPH ◽  
D. Mark Courtney, MD, MS ◽  
James G. Adams, MD ◽  
Kirsten G. Engel, MD
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Frequency Of Use ◽  
Nonopioid Analgesics ◽  
Attending Physicians

Objective: The Medication Communication Index (MCI) was used to compare counseling about opioids to nonopioid analgesics in the Emergency Department (ED) setting.Design: Secondary analysis of prospectively collected audio recordings of ED patient visits.Setting: Urban, academic medical center (>85,000 annual patient visits). Participants: Patient participants aged >18 years with one of four low acuity diagnoses: ankle sprain, back pain, head injury, and laceration. ED clinician participants included resident and attending physicians, nursing staff, and ED technicians.Main outcome measures: The MCI is a five-point index that assigns points for communicating the following: medication name (1), purpose (1), duration (1), adverse effects (1), number of tablets (0.5), and frequency of use (0.5). Recording transcripts were scored with the MCI, and total scores were compared between drug classes.Results: The 41 patients received 56 prescriptions (27 nonopioids, 29 opioids). Nonopioid median MCI score was 3 and opioid score was 4.5 (p = 0.0008). Patients were counseled equally about name (nonopioid 100 percent, opioid 96.6 percent, p = 0.34) and purpose (88.9 percent, 89.7 percent, p = 0.93). However, patients receiving opioids were counseled more frequently about duration of use (nonopioid 40.7 percent, opioid 69.0 percent, p = 0.03) and adverse effects (18.5 percent, 93.1 percent, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, opioids (β = 0.54, p = 0.04), number of medications prescribed (β = −0.49, p = 0.05), and time spent in the ED (β = 0.007, p = 0.006) were all predictors of total MCI score.Conclusions: The extent of counseling about analgesic medications in the ED differs by drug class. When counseling patients about all analgesic medications, providers should address not only medication name and purpose but also the less frequently covered topics of medication dosing, timing, and adverse effects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document