Evaluating the Feasibility of a Novel Firearm Injury Prevention Program for Pre-adolescent Children Through Health Care and Community-Based Partnerships: The Future Healers Program Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Firearm violence is an American public health crisis that negatively impacts children and disproportionately affects Black youth. Few firearm injury prevention programs have been described in pre-adolescent children. The Future Healers Program is a novel collaboration constructed via partnership between the medical school, trauma center, academic surgery department, and local non-profit community organization. Our study sought to evaluate if (1) partnering with community organizations facilitated recruitment of children with prior exposure to firearm violence and (2) the health care community was a potential trusted partner appropriate for program delivery. METHODS: Children aged 4-13 were recruited to join the program via news outlets and social media and in partnership with a local non-profit organization. Of the children and parents participating in the program, 48% (44/92) and 59% (38/64), respectively, completed an IRB-approved survey study. Pearson's chi-square, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals evaluated differences between children and caregivers on sociodemographic characteristics, firearm exposure (FE), firearm violence exposure (FVE), and perception of health care. Participant's residence was geocoded in relationship to incidents of firearm injury (2008-2021) in the same region. RESULTS: Caregivers (95%) and children (84%) reported substantial exposure to firearm violence and resided in areas with frequent firearm injury incidents. Notably, 82% of caregivers and 66% of children reported having a family member injured by gunfire. A high percentage of caregivers (79%) and children (91%) self-reported trust in the health care system. CONCLUSION: Partnerships between community organizations and health care systems can develop prevention programs that effectively recruit and engage pre-adolescent children impacted by firearm violence.

Learning Electromagnetic Navigational Bronchoscopy and Percutaneous Transthoracic Needle Biopsy (LEAP): A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies in pulmonology have examined the validity of procedural training tools, however, translation of simulation skill acquisition into real world competency remains understudied. We examine an assessment process with a simulation training course for electromagnetic navigational (EMN) bronchoscopy and percutaneous transthoracic needle aspiration (PTTNA). METHODS: A cohort study was conducted by subjects using EMN bronchoscopy and PTTNA. A procedural assessment tool was developed to measure basic competency for EMN bronchoscopy and PTTNA at 3 different time points: first simulation case, final simulation case upon reaching a competent score, and at their first live case. The assessment tool was divided into 4 domains (total score, 4 to 16; competency ≥12) with each domain requiring a passing score (1 to 4; competency ≥3.0). Complication and procedural time were collected during their first live case. RESULTS: Twenty-two serial procedures (12 EMN bronchoscopies, 10 EMN PTTNA) were observed by 14 subjects. The mean first simulation score for EMN bronchoscopy (4.66±0.89) improved after cadaver simulation (12.67±0.89, median 3 simulations attempts). The subjects' mean score for their first live case was 13.0±0.85 (self-reported score 12.5±1.07). For EMN PTTNA, the mean first simulation score (4.3±2.40) improved after cadaver simulation (12.6±1.51, median 3 simulation attempts). The subjects' mean score for their first live PTTNA case was 12.5±2.87 (self-reported score 12.1±1.05). There was only 1 minor complication. CONCLUSION: Learning EMN bronchoscopy/PTTNA is feasible using a structured simulation course with an assessment tool.

Procedural Learning Perspectives of Pulmonary Fellows and Practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Procedural learning requires both didactic knowledge and motor skills. Optimal teaching styles and techniques remain to be defined for pulmonary procedural learning. We investigated the preferences of learners at 2 different points in a pulmonary career; as pulmonary fellows and as clinical practitioners. METHODS: A perception survey was conducted among pulmonary fellows and practitioners from multiple institutions throughout the United States. Fellows and practitioners were immediately surveyed on procedural learning factors after completing a procedural learning course using low/high-fidelity and/or cadaver simulators. Survey questions consisting of biographical information and multiple choice, Likert style, and qualitative questions regarding learning preferences were collected. RESULTS: Seventy-five physicians (44 pulmonary fellows, 31 practitioners) from 35 centers completed the survey. Pulmonary practitioners preferred an academic expert, whereas fellows preferred familiar faculty as lecturers for procedural learning (P=0.03). There were no statistical differences between fellows/practitioners value of the use of simulators, didactics, or handouts. Both groups preferred animal/cadaver and high-fidelity simulators to low-fidelity simulators. Both groups also preferred a traditional course structure to problem-based learning/flipped classroom. The most common answer to barriers for learning a new procedure was "time" for training followed by "opportunities" to learn. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary fellows and practitioners we surveyed preferred a traditional course structure with cadaver/animal models and high-fidelity simulation training as compared with a flipped classroom model and low-fidelity simulators, but whether this holds true for the wider population is unknown. Larger studies are needed to validate learning perception with outcomes.