RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Traditional journal clubs have been shown to be insufficient in improving residents' scholarly productivity, often due to the inability to sustain residents' interest and participation. Additionally, the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic restrictions caused a decline in academic scholarly productivity across residency programs. We evaluated the impact of a resident-led research club called 'journal café' on residents' scholarly productivity by comparing scholarly output between the journal café members and non-members during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The journal café was established in the 2012/2013 academic year by internal medicine residents of a university residency program in Atlanta, Georgia, to foster self-directed collaboration among residents based on shared interests in academic research. The journal café runs independently of the residency program's journal club. We categorized IM residents at our institution into journal café members and non-members and collected data on their research productivity during residency training and the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was conducted between April and June 2021 and analyzed data presented using frequencies, tables, and appropriate charts. RESULTS: Sixty-eight residents (29 journal café members and 39 non-members) completed the survey (response rate of 85%). A significantly higher number of journal café members reported having five or more research publications (55.1% vs 7.1%, P < .001) and scientific presentations (48.3% vs 2.6%, P < .001) compared with non-members. Additionally, more journal café members published COVID-19-related research in peer-reviewed journals compared with non-members (68% vs 32%, n = 19). Finally, most of the residents cited the opportunity of a platform to share and brainstorm on research ideas as the reason for joining the journal café. CONCLUSION: We found an association between journal café participation and increased scholarly activity, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Independent resident-led research clubs supported by the residency program may complement the traditional journal clubs and enhance residents' participation in research.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: We evaluated the documentation of informed consent for 2 common prostate operations using current, conventional, paper based consent forms. Based on the results of the review the conventional paper based consent system was replaced with a new, standardized electronic consent system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the consent forms obtained for transurethral resection of the prostate and radical prostatectomy procedures during the 6-year period 1995 to 2000 at Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Analysis focused on the basic elements of informed consent, including a description of the proposed treatment, and the purpose, benefits, risks and alternatives. Based on these findings we standardized the procedure specific information contained in consent forms and stored it electronically in a central network accessible to all urology providers throughout the medical center. RESULTS: Of the 222 total procedures 204 consent forms were available for review. Senior residents, junior residents and physician assistants obtained consent for 42.2%, 30.9% and 25.5% of procedures, respectively. Information on the purpose and benefits of treatment was missing in 4.4% of cases and deficient in 22.6%. General or procedure specific risks were documented inconsistently in 0% to 96% of cases. Alternative treatment options were missing in 49% of the consent forms and they were significantly deficient in the remaining 51%. Prognosis and surgical risks were documented variably for each procedure. For example, in the radical prostatectomy group 79 patients (88.8%) had appropriate documentation regarding the potential for significant blood loss and yet only 23 (25.8%) had documented consent for blood transfusion. Following the implementation of a new standardized electronic consent program 96.1% of the patients surveyed preferred the new system. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional nonstandardized consent forms have significant deficiencies and errors. The new system of electronic informed consent is standardized, legible and understandable, and it assists providers in fully informing patients about the treatment, risks, benefits and alternative therapies, thereby supporting ethical and legal standards, and improving the quality of care. In our opinion standardized electronic informed consent should be the new standard of care.
