Adapting a Medical School Cancer Research Education Program to the Virtual Environment: a Mixed-Methods Study.

With cancer incidence increasing worldwide, physicians with cancer research training are needed. The Scholars in Oncology-Associated Research (SOAR) cancer research education program was developed to train medical students in cancer research while exposing them to the breadth of clinical oncology. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, SOAR transitioned from in-person in 2019 to virtual in 2020 and hybrid in 2021. This study investigates positive and negative aspects of the varying educational formats. A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the educational formats. Pre- and post-surveys were collected from participants to assess their understanding of cancer as a clinical and research discipline. Structured interviews were conducted across all three cohorts, and thematic analysis was used to generate themes. A total of 37 students participated in SOAR and completed surveys (2019 n = 11, 2020 n = 14, and 2021 n = 12), and 18 interviews were conducted. Understanding of oncology as a clinical (p < 0.01 for all) and research discipline (p < 0.01 for all) improved within all three cohorts. There was no difference between each cohort's improvement in research understanding (p = 0.6). There was no difference between each cohort's understanding of oncology-related disciplines as both clinical and research disciplines (p > 0.1 for all). Thematic analysis demonstrated that hybrid and in-person formats were favored over a completely virtual one. Our findings demonstrate that a medical student cancer research education program is effective using in-person or hybrid formats for research education, although virtual experiences may be suboptimal to learning about clinical oncology.

Implementation and evaluation of IGNITE (Improving GME Nursing Interprofessional Team Experiences) to improve care in an academic health system.

Engaging residents with nurses in interprofessional performance improvement teams can improve learning and care. Residents at the University of Chicago Medicine were identified by nurses, and endorsed by program directors, to serve alongside nurses in Improving GME Nursing Interprofessional Team Experiences (IGNITE) teams. Teams met monthly with improvement coaches to implement institutionally aligned improvement plans. Institutional data was used to monitor progress. The Interprofessional Collaborative Competencies Attainment Survey (ICCAS) assessed interprofessional collaboration competency. Press Ganey Clinician Engagement (PGCE) data examined year over year differences in items related to teamwork comparing IGNITE units and non-IGNITE units. Length of stay (LOS) differences were also examined. From 2015 to 2019, IGNITE spread to 9 service lines engaging over 100 residents and nurses. Unit-based teams focused on adding nurses to attending rounds, implementing nurses-resident huddles, and improving multidisciplinary rounds. ICCAS scores significantly improved. PGCE data showed year over year improvements in composite teamwork and communication scores in IGNITE units. All adult inpatient IGNITE units saw a mean LOS reduction ranging from -0.15 days to -1.16 days, equating to an estimated cost savings of nearly 3 million dollars per quarter. Lessons learned include: 1) the importance of engaging hospital leadership; 2) the need to align collaborative practices with institutional goals; 3) the critical role of coaching; and 4) practices to ensure committed, consistent participants.

Defining existing practices to support the sleep of hospitalized patients: A mixed-methods study of top-ranked hospitals.

The objective of this study was to understand the existing practices and attitudes regarding inpatient sleep at the 2020 US News and World Report (USNWR) Honor Roll pediatric (n = 10) and adult (n = 20) hospitals. Section chiefs of Hospital Medicine from these institutions were surveyed and interviewed between June and August 2021. Among 23 of 30 surveyed physician leaders (response rate = 77%), 96% (n = 22) rated patient sleep as important, but only 43% (n = 10) were satisfied with their institutions' efforts. A total of 96% (n = 22) of institutions lack sleep equity practices. Fewer than half (48%) of top hospitals have sleep-friendly practices, with the most common practices including reducing overnight vital sign monitoring (43%), decreasing ambient light in the wards (43%), adjusting lab and medication schedules (35%), and implementing quiet hours (30%). Major themes from qualitative interviews included: importance of universal sleep-friendly cultures, environmental changes, and external incentives to improve patient sleep.