Do medical students understand brain death? A survey study.

BACKGROUND: A lack of understanding of brain death has been demonstrated among physicians, and may stem from knowledge deficits at the medical school level. The authors sought to evaluate current understanding of brain death and knowledge gaps among U.S. medical students at a single center. METHODS: Using a validated "Understanding Brain Death" survey tool, the authors surveyed the student body at an accredited four year medical school. A score of 5/5 on this scale indicated an expert level of understanding. The investigators identified areas of knowledge gaps, and compared brain death expertise throughout the curriculum progression. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 69% (212 of 306 students). Mean scores were 3.1, 3.9, 4.1, and 4.0 (out of 5) among first through fourth year classes respectively. Understanding of brain death differed across the medical school classes (p <0.0001). 33% (N=70) of all students attained scores of 5 indicating an expert level of understanding brain death. By class; 18% of first year students demonstrated expert levels of understanding, compared to 31% of second year students, 48% of third year students, and 39% of fourth year students. CONCLUSIONS: The level of understanding of brain death is low among the student body in a four year accredited U.S. medical school. This knowledge gap persists among graduating students as most do not attain an expert understanding of brain death. A more comprehensive brain death curriculum should be implemented in order to adequately equip physicians with this fundamental knowledge.

Randomized evaluation of a web based interview process for urology resident selection.

PURPOSE: We determined whether a web based interview process for resident selection could effectively replace the traditional on-site interview. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the 2010 to 2011 match cycle, applicants to the University of New Mexico urology residency program were randomized to participate in a web based interview process via Skype or a traditional on-site interview process. Both methods included interviews with the faculty, a tour of facilities and the opportunity to ask current residents any questions. To maintain fairness the applicants were then reinterviewed via the opposite process several weeks later. We assessed comparative effectiveness, cost, convenience and satisfaction using anonymous surveys largely scored on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Of 39 total participants (33 applicants and 6 faculty) 95% completed the surveys. The web based interview was less costly to applicants (mean $171 vs $364, p=0.05) and required less time away from school (10% missing 1 or more days vs 30%, p=0.04) compared to traditional on-site interview. However, applicants perceived the web based interview process as less effective than traditional on-site interview, with a mean 6-item summative effectiveness score of 21.3 vs 25.6 (p=0.003). Applicants and faculty favored continuing the web based interview process in the future as an adjunct to on-site interviews. CONCLUSIONS: Residency interviews can be successfully conducted via the Internet. The web based interview process reduced costs and improved convenience. The findings of this study support the use of videoconferencing as an adjunct to traditional interview methods rather than as a replacement.

Screening for subclavian artery stenosis in patients who are candidates for coronary bypass surgery.

We prospectively evaluated 59 patients who were deemed candidates for coronary bypass surgery after coronary artery angiography for subclavian artery narrowing, which could compromise the ipsilateral internal thoracic artery graft. Bilateral arm blood pressure (BP) measurements, auscultation for supraclavicular or cervical bruits, and questioning about cerebrovascular ischemic symptoms were compared to brachiocephalic-subclavian arteriography. One neurologic complication occurred during arteriography. An upper extremity BP difference of > or = 15 mm Hg identified all patients with > or = 50% subclavian artery narrowing. We recommend brachiocephalic-subclavian arteriography only in patients with abnormal noninvasive screening for subclavian stenosis, not routinely.