academic medical
Recently Published Documents





2022 ◽  
Vol 272 ◽  
pp. 79-87
Jasmine A. Khubchandani ◽  
Rachel B. Atkinson ◽  
Gezzer Ortega ◽  
Emma Reidy ◽  
John T. Mullen ◽  

2022 ◽  
Andrew R. Griswold ◽  
Julia Klein ◽  
Neville Dusaj ◽  
Jeff Zhu ◽  
Allegra Keeler ◽  

Background: Service-learning is an integral component of medical education. While the COVID-19 pandemic has caused massive educational disruptions, it has also catalyzed innovation in service-learning as real-time responses to pandemic-related problems. For example, the limited number of qualified providers was a potential barrier to local and national SARS-CoV-2 vaccination efforts. Foreseeing this hurdle, New York State temporarily allowed healthcare professional trainees to vaccinate, enabling medical students to support an overwhelmed healthcare system and contribute to the community. Yet, it was the responsibility of medical schools to interpret these rules and implement the vaccination programs. Here the authors describe a service-learning vaccination program directed towards underserved communities. Methods: Weill Cornell Medicine (WCM) rapidly developed a faculty-led curriculum to prepare students to communicate with patients about the COVID-19 vaccines and to administer intramuscular injections. Qualified students were deployed to public vaccination clinics located in underserved neighborhoods across New York City in collaboration with an established community partner. The educational value of the program was evaluated with retrospective survey. Results: Throughout the program, which lasted from February to June 2021, 128 WCM students worked at 103 local events, helping to administer 26,889 vaccine doses. Analysis of student evaluations revealed this program taught fundamental clinical skills, increasing comfort giving intramuscular injection from 2% to 100% and increasing comfort talking to patients about the COVID-19 vaccine from 30% to 100%. Qualitatively participants described the program as a transformative service-learning experience. Conclusion: As new virus variants emerge, nations battle recurrent waves of infection, and vaccine eligibility expands to include children and boosters, the need for effective vaccination plans continues to grow. The program described here offers a novel framework that academic medical centers could adapt to increase vaccine access in their local community and provide students with a uniquely meaningful educational experience.

PLoS ONE ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. e0262511
Tae Ran Ahn ◽  
Yu Mi Jeong ◽  
So Hyun Park ◽  
Ji Young Jeon ◽  
Sheen-Woo Lee ◽  

Purpose We aimed to analyze the prevalence, causes, and clinical settings of 4-year critical radiologic reports (CRRs) notified from the musculoskeletal section of the radiology department. Then, we investigated the communication outcomes. Methods This study was approved by our institutional review board. We retrospectively included 175 musculoskeletal CRRs from our database between January 2017 and December 2020. The CRRs were analyzed by two musculoskeletal radiologists, who categorized the CRRs by clinical setting (emergency department(ED) patient, outpatient, and inpatient), body part, type of image modality, reason for CRR, incidental lesion, and clinical outcome. The clinical outcome was retrieved from the electronic medical records. Results The 175 musculoskeletal CRRs accounted for 5.4% of the CRRs (n = 3217) available in the study period. Most CRRs (94.9%, 166/175) corresponded to the musculoskeletal system, while the remaining ones (5.1%, 9/175) corresponded to the non-musculoskeletal system. In addition, the spine, extremities, and thoracic cage accounted for 52.6%, 40.6%, and 1.7% of the musculoskeletal CRRs, respectively. Moreover, most patients presented to the ED (50.3%, 88/175), followed by inpatients (30.9%, 54/175), and outpatients (18.9%, 33/175). The CRR reasons included missed fracture (54.3%), suspected malignancy (16%), clinical emergency (10.3%), unexpected infection/inflammation (11.4%), and others (8%). Furthermore, 11 (6.3%) incidental lesions were not related to the primary imaging purpose. Referring clinicians actively acknowledged 80% of the CRRs. The loss to follow-up action was the highest in the ED patients (35.2%, 31/88; p < 0.001), being significantly higher than that in outpatients (6.1%, 2/33) and inpatients (3.7%, 2/54). Conclusion Missed fractures were the most common cause of musculoskeletal CRRs. ED showed prevalence in musculoskeletal CRRs and reflected the highest loss to follow-up action. ED physicians should pay more attention to CRRs to enhance patient care.

2022 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e2143398
Lala L. Forrest ◽  
Brooks P. Leitner ◽  
Cirila Estela Vasquez Guzman ◽  
Erik Brodt ◽  
Charles A. Odonkor

Nathan Velarde ◽  
Antonio C. Westphalen ◽  
Hao G. Nguyen ◽  
John Neuhaus ◽  
Katsuto Shinohara ◽  

Abstract Purpose To identify predictors of when systematic biopsy leads to a higher overall prostate cancer grade compared to targeted biopsy. Methods and materials 918 consecutive patients who underwent prostate MRI followed by MRI/US fusion biopsy and systematic biopsies from January 2015 to November 2019 at a single academic medical center were retrospectively identified. The outcome was upgrade of PCa by systematic biopsy, defined as cases when systematic biopsy led to a Gleason Grade (GG) ≥ 2 and greater than the maximum GG detected by targeted biopsy. Generalized linear regression and conditional logistic regression were used to analyze predictors of upgrade. Results At the gland level, the presence of an US-visible lesion was associated with decreased upgrade (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44–0.93, p = 0.02). At the sextant level, upgrade was more likely to occur through the biopsy of sextants with MRI-visible lesions (OR 2.58, 95% CI 1.87–3.63, p < 0.001), US-visible lesions (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.14–2.93, p = 0.01), and ipsilateral lesions (OR 3.89, 95% CI 2.36–6.42, p < 0.001). Conclusion Systematic biopsy is less valuable in patients with an US-visible lesion, and more likely to detect upgrades in sextants with imaging abnormalities. An approach that takes additional samples from regions with imaging abnormalities may provide analogous information to systematic biopsy.

2022 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Michelle Sharp ◽  
Nicole Williams ◽  
Sean Tackett ◽  
Laura A. Hanyok ◽  
Colleen Christmas ◽  

Vishal P. Shah ◽  
Laura E. Breeher ◽  
Julie M. Alleckson ◽  
David G. Rivers ◽  
Zhen Wang ◽  

Abstract Objective: To assess the rate and factors associated with healthcare personnel (HCP) testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 after an occupational exposure Design: Retrospective cohort study Setting: Academic medical center with sites in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Florida Subjects: HCP with a high or medium risk occupational exposure to a patient or other HCP with SARS-CoV-2 Methods: We reviewed the records of HCP with significant occupational exposures from March 20th, 2020 through December 31st, 2020. We then performed regression analysis to assess the impact of demographic and occupational variables to assess their impact on the likelihood of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 Results: A total of 2,253 confirmed occupational exposures occurred during the study period. Employees were the source for 57.1% of exposures. Overall, 101 (4.5%) HCP tested positive in the postexposure period. Of these, 80 had employee sources of exposure and 21 had patient sources of exposure. The post exposure infection rate was 6.2% when employees were the source, compared to 2.2% with patient sources. In a multivariate analysis, occupational exposure from an employee source had a higher risk of testing positive compared to a patient source (OR 3.22 95% CI (1.72-6.04)). Gender, age, high-risk exposure, and HCP role were not associated with increased risk of testing positive. Conclusions: The risk of acquiring COVID-19 following a significant occupational exposure is relatively low, even in the pre-vaccination era. Exposure to an infectious coworker carries a higher risk than exposure to a patient. Continued vigilance and precautions remain necessary in healthcare settings.

Anne DeChant ◽  
Stephen Fening ◽  
Michael Haag ◽  
William Harte ◽  
Mark Chance

2022 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-23
Amanda Weidner ◽  
Samantha Elwood ◽  
Erin E. Thacker ◽  
Wendy Furst ◽  
Leigh Partington ◽  

Background and Objectives: Despite the prevalence of published opinions about the use of professional academic writers to help disseminate the results of clinical research, particularly opinions about the use of ghost writers, very little information has been published on the possible roles for professional writers within academic medical departments or the mechanisms by which these departments can hire and compensate such writers. To begin addressing this lack of information, the Association of Departments of Family Medicine hosted an online discussion and a subsequent webinar in which we obtained input from three departments of family medicine in the United States regarding their use of academic writers. This discussion revealed three basic models by which academic writers have benefitted these departments: (1) grant writing support, (2) research and academic support for clinical faculty, and (3) departmental communication support. Drawing on specific examples from these institutions, the purpose of this paper is to describe the key support activities, advantages, disadvantages, and funding opportunities for each model for other departments to consider and adapt.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document