Implementation and Evaluation of Educational Workshops to Increase Primary Care Provider and Medical Student Comfort in Psychiatric Care.

OBJECTIVE: Mental health treatment is often initiated in primary care settings, but many primary care providers (PCPs), residents, and medical students report discomfort in managing psychiatric conditions. This study evaluated the effect of an educational workshop that featured an evidence-based psychopharmacology clinical decision support tool (CDST) on trainee confidence and willingness to treat psychiatric conditions. METHODS: Participants completed pre- and post-workshop surveys. Nine months after the workshop, a subset of trainees participated in a focus group. RESULTS: Of the participants, 62.5% of the obstetrics-gynecology (OB-GYN) resident physicians (10/16) and 100% of the medical students (18/18) completed both pre- and post-surveys. Following the workshop, OB-GYN resident physicians reported significantly improved confidence in treating psychiatric disorders (p < 0.001), sense of having psychiatric support tools (p < 0.001), and knowledge of treating psychiatric disorders (p = 0.021). Medical students reported significantly improved confidence in treating psychiatric disorders (p < 0.001), willingness to devise treatment plans for psychiatric disorders (p = 0.024), sense of having psychiatric support tools (p < 0.001), knowledge of treating psychiatric disorders (p < 0.001), and comfort in presenting a psychiatric treatment plan to an attending (p = 0.003). Most focus group participants (93.75%; 15/16) reported that they continued to use the CDST, and it increased their confidence in formulating psychiatric treatment plans. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that educational workshops that introduce high-quality psychopharmacology CDSTs may be an effective method for improving provider comfort in treating psychiatric disorders.

Beyond prevention: Unveiling the benefits of triple vaccination on COVID-19 severity and resource utilization in solid organ transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the widespread reduction in COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality attributed to vaccination in the general population, vaccine efficacy in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) remains under-characterized. This study aimed to investigate clinically relevant outcomes on double and triple-vaccinated versus unvaccinated SOTR with COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study was performed utilizing data from the US Collaborative Network Database within TriNetX (n = 117,905,631). We recruited vaccinated and unvaccinated (matched controls) SOTR with COVID-19 over two time periods to control for vaccine availability: December 2020 to October 2022 (bi-dose, double-dose vaccine effectiveness) and December 2020 to April 2023 (tri-dose, triple-dose vaccine effectiveness). A total of 42 factors associated with COVID-19 disease severity were controlled for including age, obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. We monitored 30-day outcomes including acute respiratory failure, intubation, and death following a diagnosis of COVID-19. RESULTS: Subjects were categorized into two cohorts based on the two time periods: bi-dose cohort (vaccinated, n = 462; unvaccinated, n = 20,998); tri-dose cohort (vaccinated, n = 517; unvaccinated, n = 23,061).Compared to unvaccinated SOTR, 30-day mortality was significantly lower for vaccinated subjects in both cohorts: tri-dose (2.0% vs 7.5%, HR = 0.22 [95% CI: 0.11, 0.46]); bi-dose (3.7% vs 8.2%, HR = 0.43 [95% CI: 0.24, 0.76]). Hospital admission rates were similar between bi-dose vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects (33.1% vs 28.6%, HR = 1.2 [95% CI: 0.95, 1.52]). In contrast, tri-dose vaccinated subjects had a significantly lower likelihood of hospital admission (29.4% vs 36.6%, HR = 0.74 [95% CI: 0.6, 0.91]). Intubation rates were significantly lower for triple-vaccinated- (2.3% vs 5.2%, p < 0.05), but not double-vaccinated subjects (3.0% vs 5.2%, p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19, triple vaccination, but not double vaccination, against SARS-CoV-2 was associated with significantly less hospital resource utilization, decreased disease severity, and fewer short-term complications. These real-world data from extensively matched controls support the protective effects of COVID-19 vaccination with boosters in this vulnerable population.

Leveraging the Science of Teamwork to Sustain Handoff Improvements in Cardiovascular Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Improving the reliability of handoffs and care transitions is an important goal for many health care organizations. Increasing evidence shows that human-centered design and improved teamwork can lead to sustainable care transition improvements and better patient outcomes. This study was conducted within a cardiovascular service line at an academic medical center that performs more than 600 surgical procedures annually. A handoff process previously implemented at the center was poorly adopted. This work aimed to improve cardiovascular handoffs by applying human factors and the science of teamwork. METHODS: The study's quality improvement method used Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles and participatory design and ergonomics to develop, implement, and assess a new handoff process and bundle. Trained observers analyzed video-recorded and live handoffs to assess teamwork, leadership, communication, coordination, cooperation, and sustainability of unit-defined handoff best practices. The intervention included a teamwork-focused redesign process and handoff bundle with supporting cognitive aids and assessment metrics. RESULTS: The study assessed 153 handoffs in multiple phases over 3 years (2016-2019). Quantitative and qualitative assessments of clinician (teamwork) and implementation outcomes were performed. Compared with the baseline, the observed handoffs demonstrated improved team leadership (p < 0.0001), communication (p < 0.0001), coordination (p = 0.0018), and cooperation (p = 0.007) following the deployment of the handoff bundle. Sustained improvements in fidelity to unit-defined handoff best practices continued 2.3 years post-deployment of the handoff bundle. CONCLUSION: Participatory design and ergonomics, combined with implementation and safety science principles, can provide an evidence-based approach for sustaining complex sociotechnical change and making handoffs more reliable.

The impact of RSV/SARS-CoV-2 co-infection on clinical disease and viral replication: insights from a BALB/c mouse model.

RSV and SARS-CoV-2 are prone to co-infection with other respiratory viruses. In this study, we use RSV/SARS-CoV-2 co-infection to evaluate changes to clinical disease and viral replication in vivo. To consider the severity of RSV infection, effect of sequential infection, and the impact of infection timing, mice were co-infected with varying doses and timing. Compared with a single infection of RSV or SARS-CoV-2, the co-infection of RSV/SARS-CoV-2 and the primary infection of RSV followed by SARS-CoV-2 results in protection from SARS-CoV-2-induced clinical disease and reduces SARS-CoV-2 replication. Co-infection also augmented RSV replication at early timepoints with only the low dose. Additionally, the sequential infection of RSV followed by SARS-CoV-2 led to improved RSV clearance regardless of viral load. However, SARS-CoV-2 infection followed by RSV results in enhanced SARS-CoV-2-induced disease while protecting from RSV-induced disease. SARS-CoV-2/RSV sequential infection also reduced RSV replication in the lung tissue, regardless of viral load. Collectively, these data suggest that RSV and SARS-CoV-2 co-infection may afford protection from or enhancement of disease based on variation in infection timing, viral infection order, and/or viral dose. In the pediatric population, understanding these infection dynamics will be critical to treat patients and mitigate disease outcomes.

Team FIRST framework: Identifying core teamwork competencies critical to interprofessional healthcare curricula.

Interprofessional healthcare team function is critical to the effective delivery of patient care. Team members must possess teamwork competencies, as team function impacts patient, staff, team, and healthcare organizational outcomes. There is evidence that team training is beneficial; however, consensus on the optimal training content, methods, and evaluation is lacking. This manuscript will focus on training content. Team science and training research indicates that an effective team training program must be founded upon teamwork competencies. The Team FIRST framework asserts there are 10 teamwork competencies essential for healthcare providers: recognizing criticality of teamwork, creating a psychologically safe environment, structured communication, closed-loop communication, asking clarifying questions, sharing unique information, optimizing team mental models, mutual trust, mutual performance monitoring, and reflection/debriefing. The Team FIRST framework was conceptualized to instill these evidence-based teamwork competencies in healthcare professionals to improve interprofessional collaboration. This framework is founded in validated team science research and serves future efforts to develop and pilot educational strategies that educate healthcare workers on these competencies.

Improving handover competency in preclinical medical and health professions students: establishing the reliability and construct validity of an assessment instrument.

BACKGROUND: As part of the worldwide call to enhance the safety of patient handovers of care, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) requires that all graduating students "give or receive a patient handover to transition care responsibly" as one of its Core Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) for Entering Residency. Students therefore require educational activities that build the necessary teamwork skills to perform structured handovers. To date, a reliable instrument designed to assess teamwork competencies, like structured communication, throughout their preclinical and clinical years does not exist. METHOD: Our team developed an assessment instrument that evaluates both the use of structured communication and two additional teamwork competencies necessary to perform safe patient handovers. This instrument was utilized to assess 192 handovers that were recorded from a sample of 229 preclinical medical students and 25 health professions students who participated in a virtual course on safe patient handovers. Five raters were trained on utilization of the assessment instrument, and consensus was established. Each handover was reviewed independently by two separate raters. RESULTS: The raters achieved 72.22 % agreement across items in the reviewed handovers. Krippendorff's alpha coefficient to assess inter-rater reliability was 0.6245, indicating substantial agreement among the raters. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated the orthogonal characteristics of items in this instrument with rotated item loadings onto three distinct factors providing preliminary evidence of construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: We present an assessment instrument with substantial reliability and preliminary evidence of construct validity designed to evaluate both use of structured handover format as well as two team competencies necessary for safe patient handovers. Our assessment instrument can be used by educators to evaluate learners' handoff performance as early as their preclinical years and is broadly applicable in the clinical context in which it is utilized. In the journey to optimize safe patient care through improved teamwork during handovers, our instrument achieves a critical step in the process of developing a validated assessment instrument to evaluate learners as they seek to accomplish this goal.