Listen Before You Auscultate: An Active-Learning Approach to Bedside Cardiac Assessment.

Introduction: Bedside cardiac assessment (BCA) is deficient across a spectrum of noncardiology trainees. Learners not taught BCA well may become instructors who do not teach well, creating a self-perpetuating problem. To improve BCA teaching and learning, we developed a high-quality, patient-centered curriculum for medicine clerkship students that could be flexibly implemented and accessible to other health professions learners. Methods: With a constructivist perspective, we aligned learning goals, activities, and assessments. The curriculum used a "listen before you auscultate" framework, capturing patient history as context for a six-step, systematic approach. In the flipped classroom, short videos and practice questions preceded two 1-hour class activities that integrated diagnostic reasoning, pathophysiology, physical diagnosis, and reflection. Activities included case discussions, jugular venous pressure evaluation, heart sound competitions, and simulated conversations with patients. Two hundred sixty-eight students at four US and international medical schools participated. We incorporated feedback, performed thematic analysis, and assessed learners' confidence and knowledge. Results: Low posttest data capture limited quantitative results. Students reported increased confidence in BCA ability. Knowledge increased in both BCA and control groups. Thematic analysis suggested instructional design strategies were effective and peer encounters, skills practice, and encounters with educators were meaningful. Discussion: The curriculum supported active learning of day-to-day clinical competencies and promoted professional identity formation alongside BCA ability. Feedback and increased confidence on the late-clerkship posttest suggested durable learning. We recommend approaches to confirm this and other elements of knowledge, skill acquisition, or behaviors and are surveying impacts on professional identity formation-related constructs.

Ethical Guidance for Physicians and Health Care Institutions on Grateful Patient Fundraising: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians.

Physician solicitation of charitable contributions from patients-also known among other things as grateful patient fundraising-raises significant ethical concerns. These include pressure on patients to donate and the effects of this on the patient-physician relationship, potential expectations of donor patients for treatment that is not indicated or preferential care, justice and fairness issues, disclosure and use of confidential patient information for nontreatment purposes, and conflicts of interest. The patient-physician relationship and knowledge of the patient's medical history, clinical status, personal information, and financial circumstances are some of the reasons development and administrative officials might see physicians as strong potential fundraisers. But those are among the reasons grateful patient fundraising is ethically problematic. This American College of Physicians position paper explores these issues and offers guidance.

Effect of low-density lipoprotein apheresis on inflammatory and noninflammatory high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis, a treatment for familial hypercholesterolemia, significantly decreases LDL cholesterol and inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein, CD40 ligand, and tissue factor. LDL apheresis also decreases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, which might be considered therapeutically counterproductive because HDL is known to be anti-inflammatory. However, recent studies have shown that HDL also possesses proinflammatory properties, as seen in its ability to alter LDL-induced monocyte chemotactic activity. We examined the acute effects of LDL apheresis on inflammatory HDL activity in 13 patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and cardiovascular disease who had been receiving bi-weekly LDL apheresis treatments. Immediately before and immediately after treatment, each patient's plasma was collected for analysis of inflammatory HDL and full lipid profile. LDL apheresis reduced LDL by 52% (from 208 +/- 89 to 99 +/- 48 mg/dl, p <0.002), and HDL decreased by 16% (49 +/- 15 to 41 +/- 13 mg/dl, p <0.003). At the same time, inflammatory HDL activity (in migrated monocytes per high-power field) decreased from 22 +/- 4 to 14 +/- 2, a 37% acute reduction (p <0.003). Moreover, inflammatory HDL before HDL apheresis was highly correlated with its acute reduction (r(s) = 0.85, p <0.001). In conclusion, our findings indicate that, in addition to decreasing LDL, LDL apheresis also decreases inflammatory HDL. The clinical significance of reducing inflammatory HDL is currently unknown, and further research is needed to examine its potential benefit for cardiovascular disease.