The development of a current events and dialogue forum at a large U.S. academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: The Vanderbilt Community Circle (VC2) was designed to provide all faculty, staff, and students within the entire Vanderbilt University Medical Center community a dedicated venue to discuss current events and ongoing societal issues. APPROACH: During the 2017-18 academic year, four VC2 events were held on: "Race, identity, and conflict in America," "Gun violence in America," "Gender in the workplace," and "Immigration in America." Facilitators guided participants to share their views and perspectives on these matters with pre-developed open-ended questions. Attendees started discussions in small groups and then eventually combined into a large one. Pre- and post-event surveys were administered to measure the program's effectiveness. EVALUATION: One-hundred and twenty-four participants were included, 75 of whom completed both the pre- and post-event surveys. Sixty-four of the 75 (85%) agreed or strongly agreed that "multiple perspectives and opinions were represented" and 73% felt that their "own perspective was broadened on the issue." Most (89%) believed that the format and setting of the event was conducive to dialogue and discussion, and almost all (91%) reported that they would attend a similar event in the future. Groningen Reflection Ability Scale scores were high before (94 [25th-75th: 88-99]) and remained high after the events (93 [25th-75th: 88-93.3], p > 0.05). REFLECTION: We successfully implemented a medical center-wide, recurring current events and dialogue forum in hopes of increasing reflection, unity, and understanding across our own community.

Exploring Careers in Medicine: Implementation and Perceived Value of a Multi-Specialty Elective.

INTRODUCTION: Choosing a medical specialty is one of the most crucial and difficult decisions made during medical school. Given that specialty exposure is among the most important factors in decision-making, the Careers in Medicine (CiM) multi-specialty elective was designed to provide clerkship students an avenue to explore three or more specialties of interest during a single elective. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine using anonymous surveys and de-identified written reflections submitted by students enrolled in the CiM course between August 2015 and June 2018. Data were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. RESULTS: The majority of students reported the elective guided them in ruling out (80%) and ruling in (65%) specialties. About half (51%) of students decided between the procedural versus critical-thinking dichotomy. Finally, 80% of students reported that they would take the course again rather than a focused elective. Major themes identified from student reflections included course attributes, specialty impacts, and student values. DISCUSSION: Implementation of a multi-specialty elective during the clerkship year was an effective way to help students understand their career values, gain early exposure to specialties not featured in core clinical curriculums, and determine future fields of interest. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01311-0.

Changes in Provider Perceptions Regarding Early Mobility in the PICU.

OBJECTIVES: Early mobility in the PICU is safe and feasible. However, PICUs continue to meet barriers to implementing early mobility. PICU providers were surveyed before and after initiating an early mobility protocol to determine perceived barriers and continued challenges in performing early mobility. DESIGN: This single-center prospective study surveyed PICU providers regarding 26 potential barriers to early mobility using a five-point Likert scale. A survey was distributed 1 month prior to and 6 months after beginning an early mobility protocol. SETTING: Free-standing academic tertiary care children's hospital. SUBJECTS: PICU providers of various professions. INTERVENTIONS: Implementation of PICU-wide early mobility protocol. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Paired pre- and post-early mobility protocol implementation surveys from 97 providers were compared. System-based barriers decreased after implementation of the early mobility protocol, such as lack of guidelines (75-20%; p < 0.01), inadequate training (74-33%; p < 0.01), lack of early mobility orders (72-30%; p < 0.01), and delayed recognition of early mobility candidates (68-35%; p < 0.01). Difficulty coordinating early mobility sessions, although significantly decreased, still remained a concern for 66% of providers in the postsurvey. Lack of resources, specifically staff (85-82%; p = 0.68) and equipment (67-60%; p = 0.36), also remained significant barriers. Presence of an endotracheal tube was a barrier for only 29% of providers' post-early mobility protocol, compared with 69% prior (p < 0.01). Clinical instability remained a top concern (82-79%; p = 0.63) as well as agitation (74-67%; p = 0.23). Day shift providers, with more early mobility exposure, perceived fewer barriers compared with night shift providers. Ninety percentage of post-early mobility survey participants felt that early mobility positively impacted their patients. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an early mobility protocol significantly changed provider perceptions regarding barriers to early mobility. Certain factors, such as staff availability, coordination difficulty, equipment shortage, and patient clinical factors, continue to be significant challenges to early mobility in the PICU population.