Calling for collaboration: piloting smartphones to discover differences between users and devices.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare technologies and patient care have evolved rapidly. Healthcare communication techniques and technologies have lagged. PURPOSES: This pilot study was conducted at Duke University Hospital to investigate the benefits of using smartphones among healthcare team members to promote efficient and effective patient care. METHODS: This study used a pre-post implementation survey with an educational intervention. Teams (physicians, patient resource managers, physician assistants, and nurses) from medicine and surgery were randomly assigned a smartphone. A validated 28-question survey was used to assess user experience (7-point Likert scale, with 7 indicating more reliable, strongly agree, and faster). Participants were encouraged to attend focus groups to provide feedback on survey content and overall experience. Facilitators used guiding questions and transcripts were used for qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-nine matched pre- and postsurveys were analyzed. Postimplementation data results declined for a majority of items, although remained favorable. This suggests the reality of smartphone use did not live up to expectations but was still considered an improvement over the current paging system. Differences by device and user were found, such as the iPhone being easier to use and the BlackBerry more professional; nonphysicians were more concerned about training and the sterility of the device. Themes elicited from focus groups included challenges of the current paging system, text message content, device ease of use and utility, service coverage, and professionalism. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in this study recognized the benefit of using smartphones to reach team members in a timely and convenient manner while having access to beneficial applications. Lessons were learned for future implementations with more favorable experiences for participants. Perhaps most striking was the shared acknowledgment that the current system doesn't work well and an understanding of why.

Fostering creativity: how the Duke Graduate Medical Education Quasi-Endowment encourages innovation in GME.

The Duke Medicine Graduate Medical Education Quasi-Endowment, established in 2006, provides infrastructure support and encourages educational innovation. The authors describe Duke's experience with the "grassroots innovation" part of the fund, the Duke Innovation Fund, and discuss the Innovation Fund's processes for application, review, and implementation, and also outcomes, impact, and intended and unintended consequences.In the five years of the Innovation Fund described (2007-2011), 105 projects have been submitted, and 78 have been funded. Thirty-seven projects have been completed. Approved funding ranged from $2,363 to $348,750, with an average award of $66,391. This represents 42% of funding originally requested. Funding could be requested for a period of 6 months to 3 years. The average duration of projects was 27 months, with a range from 6 months to 36 months. Eighty percent of projects were completed on time. Two projects were closed because of lack of progress and failure to adhere to reporting requirements. Thirty-nine are ongoing.Program directors report great success in meeting project outcomes and concrete impacts on resident and faculty attitudes and performance. Ninety-two percent report that their projects would have never been accomplished without this funding. Projects have resulted in at least 68 posters, abstracts, and peer-reviewed presentations. At least 12 peer-reviewed manuscripts were published.There has been tremendous diversity of projects; all 13 clinical departments have been represented. Interdepartmental and intradepartmental program cooperation has increased. This modest seed money has resulted in demonstrable sustainable impacts on teaching and learning, and increased morale and scholarly recognition.

To match or not: factors influencing resident choice of graduate medical education program.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the factors that influence applicants' decisions to select a graduate medical education training program. Programs may improve their recruitment by better understanding that process. METHODS: Following the Match for the years 2008 though 2010, an electronic survey was sent to 664 applicants to 15 Duke University graduate medical education programs. Those individuals were ranked high enough to match to Duke University but chose to match at another institution. We used quantitative and qualitative analyses to explore factors influencing candidates' decisions and to identify program and institutional improvements to better attract top candidates. RESULTS: Response rate was 63% (417/664). The quantitative analysis identified factors that were "very important" to applicants (current resident satisfaction, relationship between faculty and residents, collegiality of current residents, quantity and quality of faculty content/mentoring, faculty teaching expertise, diversity of patients and types of procedures, and location), and those that were "not important" to applicants (child care or education opportunities for children, salary, United States Medical Licensing Examination requirements, part-time training options, favorable environment for minorities or women). There were statistically significant differences among specialties. Qualitative analysis identified 3 themes as most influential in their choice: location, program relationships, and the interview experience. CONCLUSION: The collection of 3 years of data across specialties identified factors that are important to applicants' choice of a training program. Some factors can be addressed quickly and with little effort, such as the format of the interview day. Others require programs and institutions to revisit their mission, priorities, and training culture to improve relationships between residents and faculty. Programs may wish to be more tactical in selecting the residents and faculty who meet with applicants and be more focused in planning how the interview time is used.

Addressing the systems-based practice requirement with health policy content and educational technology.

Duke University Hospital Office of Graduate Medical Education and Duke University's Fuqua School of Business collaborated to offer a Health Policy lecture series to residents and fellows across the institution, addressing the "Systems-based Practice" competency.During the first year, content was offered in two formats: live lecture and web/podcast. Participants could elect the modality which was most convenient for them. In Year Two, the format was changed so that all content was web/podcast and a quarterly live panel discussion was led by module presenters or content experts. Lecture evaluations, qualitative focus group feedback, and post-test data were analyzed.A total of 77 residents and fellows from 8 (of 12) Duke Graduate Medical Education departments participated. In the first year, post-test results were the same for those who attended the live lectures and those who participated via web/podcast. A greater number of individuals participated in Year Two. Participants from both years expressed the need for health policy content in their training programs. Participants in both years valued a hybrid format for content delivery, recognizing a desire for live interaction with the convenience of accessing web/podcasts at times and locations convenient for them. A positive unintended consequence of the project was participant networking with residents and fellows from other specialties.