Understanding providers' perspectives using patient-reported outcomes in a pain management setting: a pilot study.

Aim: This pilot study evaluated an electronic patient-reported outcomes collection system in pain management to understand providers' experiences using the data, and how it affects their patient interaction and guides their clinical decision-making. Materials & methods: Using stratified convenience sampling, nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with consented pain physicians. The transcribed, de-identified interviews were coded and analyzed. Results: Although most physicians utilized patient reported outcomes (PROs), one-third reported no significant change in their practice since implementation and 56% stated it does not influence their treatment recommendations. Conclusion: Despite the importance of measuring the impact of chronic pain on quality of life, there are significant limitations to the real-world use of PRO that may limit the patient's assessment and care.

[Box: see text].

Evolution of the feedback conversation in anaesthesia education: a narrative review.

Over the past century, education has been a core component for improving patient safety. The initial focus was developing a curriculum and an assessment process. In recent decades, the value of work-based learning has come to the fore. Learning from work, or experiential learning, requires reflection, which is critically dependent on external feedback. Conceptions of feedback have moved from a transactional information transfer from the supervisor to the trainee to a learner-centred and collaborative process occurring in a complex socio-cultural environment. In this narrative review we describe the evolution of the feedback conversation, provide a model synthesising the core concepts of feedback, and offer some guidance for the development of effective feedback in anaesthesia education.

Perspectives on National Institutes of Health Funding Requirements for Racial and Ethnic Diversity Among Medical Scientist Training Program Leadership.

Importance: Since 1964, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) MD-PhD program at medical schools across the US to support training physician-scientists. Recent studies have suggested that MSTPs have consistently matriculated more students from racial and ethnic backgrounds historically underrepresented in science than MD-PhD programs without NIH funding; however, the underlying basis for the increased diversity seen in NIH-funded MSTPs is poorly understood. Objective: To investigate how administrators and faculty perceive the impact of MSTP status on MD-PhD program matriculant racial and ethnic diversity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used a positive deviance approach to identify 9 high-performing and 3 low-performing MSTPs based on the percentage of students underrepresented in science who matriculated into the program between 2014 and 2018. This study, a subanalysis of a larger study to understand recruitment of students underrepresented in science at MSTPs, focused on in-depth qualitative interviews, conducted from October 26, 2020, to August 31, 2022, of 69 members of MSTP leadership, including program directors, associate and assistant program directors, and program administrators. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association of NIH funding with institutional priorities, programs, and practices related to MD-PhD program matriculant racial and ethnic diversity. Results: The study included 69 participants (mean [SD] age, 53 [10] years; 38 women [55%]; 13 African American or Black participants [19%], 6 Asian participants [9%], 12 Hispanic participants [17%], and 36 non-Hispanic White participants [52%]). A total of 51 participants (74%) were in administrative roles, and 18 (26%) were faculty involved in recruitment. Five themes emerged from the data: (1) by tying MSTP funding to diversity efforts, the NIH created a sense of urgency among MSTP leadership to bolster matriculant diversity; (2) MD-PhD program leadership leveraged the changes to MSTP grant review to secure new institutional investments to promote recruitment of students underrepresented in science; (3) MSTPs increasingly adopted holistic review to evaluate applicants to meet NIH funding requirements; (4) MSTP leadership began to systematically assess the effectiveness of their diversity initiatives and proactively identify opportunities to enhance matriculant diversity; and (5) although all MSTPs were required to respond to NIH criteria, changes made by low-performing programs generally lacked the robustness demonstrated by high-performing programs. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that NIH funding requirements may be a powerful incentive to promote diversity and positively affect representation of students underrepresented in science in the biomedical scientific workforce.

Summer Clinical Oncology Research Experience (SCORE) Program: Engaging Undergraduates from Diverse Backgrounds in Cancer Research.

Diversifying the future cancer research workforce requires that students engage in cancer research, persist in paths toward science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) fields, and choose cancer research careers. The Summer Clinical Oncology Research Experience (SCORE) Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering, designed in 2010 to engage undergraduate (U) and post-baccalaureate (PB) students from diverse backgrounds in cancer research, is an 8-week summer program pairing an U or PB student with a faculty mentor to conduct cancer research. We report demographics and career paths for 2010-2019 SCORE students. Of 116 students, 112 (97%) attended public universities, and 75 (64%) were in their first 2 years of college. Race/ethnicity was Black/African American, 20 (17%); Hispanic/Latinx, 15 (13%); multiracial, five (4%); Asian, 40 (34%); White/Caucasian, 36 (31%). A total of 112 (97%) identified as female; 47 (41%) were first-generation college students, and 85 (73%) were from immigrant families. As of 2021, 114 (98%) persisted in paths toward STEMM careers: 44 (38%) medical school (MS) students, 14 (12%) residents, two (2%) practicing physicians, 12 (10%) pursuing non-MD STEMM advanced degrees, 21 (18%) working in non-MD STEMM fields, 17 (15%) applying to MS, and 4 (3%) U science majors. Cancer research participation significantly increased from 5% pre- to 84% post-SCORE. A total of 63/116 (54%) students subsequently co-authored 152 peer-reviewed publications, including 105 (69%) in oncology. SCORE engaged underrepresented U and PB students in cancer research, and 98% of these students persisted in paths toward STEMM careers. Long-term follow-up is needed to assess the enduring engagement of these underrepresented students in cancer research.

Resident Physicians as Clinical Educators in Anesthesiology: A Narrative Review.

The importance of resident physicians as clinical educators is widely acknowledged in many clinical specialties and by national accreditation organizations for medical education. Within anesthesiology training programs, there is growing attention to the role of trainees as clinical educators. This narrative review describes the theoretical and demonstrated benefits of clinical teaching by residents in anesthesiology and other medical fields, summarizes current efforts to support and promote residents as educators, and suggests ways in which anesthesiology training programs can further assess and develop the role of residents as clinical educators.

Trends in U.S. MD-PhD Program Matriculant Diversity by Sex and Race/Ethnicity.

PURPOSE: To examine demographic characteristics of matriculants to U.S. MD-PhD programs by sex and race/ethnicity from academic years (AYs) 2009-2018 and explore the relationships between trends in the percentage of female and underrepresented minority (URM) matriculants to programs with and without Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) funding. METHOD: Linear regression and time trend analysis of the absolute percentage of matriculants into all U.S. MD-PhD programs was performed for self-reported sex and race/ethnicity, using Association of American Medical Colleges data for AYs 2009-2018, including an interaction for MSTP funding status (yes/no) and year. Linear regression of the percentage of programs matriculating no female or no URM students between AYs 2009 and 2018 was performed, focusing on programs in the top 3 quartiles by size (i.e., those matriculating 4 or more students per year). RESULTS: Between AYs 2009 and 2018, the percentage of matriculants to all MD-PhD programs who were female (38.0%-46.0%, 1.05%/year, P = .002) or URM (9.8%-16.7%, 0.77%/year, P < .001) increased. The annual percentage gains of URM matriculants were greater at MSTP-funded programs compared with non-MSTP-funded programs (0.50%/year, P = .046). Moreover, among MD-PhD programs in the top 3 quartiles by size, the percentage of programs with no female matriculants decreased by 0.40% per year ( P = .02) from 4.6% in 2009 to 1.6% in 2018, and the percentage of programs with no URM matriculants decreased by 3.41% per year ( P < .001) from 49% in 2009 to 22% in 2018. CONCLUSIONS: A consistent and sustained increase in the percentage of female and URM matriculants to MD-PhD programs from AYs 2009-2018 was observed, but the annual increases in the percentages across groups were small, and the demographics of the MD-PhD workforce still do not reflect the diversity of the U.S. general population.