A Multicenter Observational Study Comparing Virtual with In-Person Morning Reports during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted how educational conferences were delivered, leaving programs to choose between in-person and virtual morning report formats. The objective of our study was to describe morning reports during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of virtual formats, attendance, leadership, and content. METHODS: A prospective observational study of morning reports was conducted at 13 Internal Medicine residency programs between September 1, 2020 and March 30, 2021, including a follow-up survey of current morning report format in January 2023. RESULTS: In total, 257 reports were observed; 74% used virtual formats, including single hospital, multiple hospital, and a hybrid format with both in-person and virtual participants. Compared with in-person reports, virtual reports had more participants, with increased numbers of learners (median 21 vs 7; P < 0.001) and attendings (median 4 vs 2; P < 0.001), and they were more likely to involve medical students (83% vs 40%; P < 0.001), interns (99% vs 53%; P < 0.001), and program directors (68% vs 32%; P < 0.001). Attendings were less likely to lead virtual reports (3% vs 28%, P < 0.001). Virtual reports also were more likely to be case based (88% vs 69%; P < 0.001) and to use digital presentation slides (91% vs 36%; P < 0.001). There was a marked increase in the number of slides (median 20 vs 0; P < 0.001). As of January 2023, all 13 programs had returned to in-person reports, with only 1 program offering an option to participate virtually. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual morning report formats predominated. Compared with traditional in-person reports, virtual report increased attendance, favored resident leadership, and approached a similar range of patient diagnoses with a greater number of case-based presentations and slides. In spite of these characteristics, all programs returned to an in-person format for morning report as pandemic restrictions waned.

What internal medicine attendings talk about at morning report: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Morning report is a core educational activity in internal medicine resident education. Attending physicians regularly participate in morning report and influence the learning environment, though no previous study has described the contribution of attending physicians to this conference. This study aims to describe attending comments at internal medicine morning reports. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of morning reports conducted at 13 internal medicine residency programs between September 1, 2020, and March 30, 2021. Each attending comment was described including its duration, whether the comment was teaching or non-teaching, teaching topic, and field of practice of the commenter. We also recorded morning report-related variables including number of learners, report format, program director participation, and whether report was scripted (facilitator has advance knowledge of the case). A regression model was developed to describe variables associated with the number of attending comments per report. RESULTS: There were 2,344 attending comments during 250 conferences. The median number of attendings present was 3 (IQR, 2-5). The number of comments per report ranged across different sites from 3.9 to 16.8 with a mean of 9.4 comments/report (SD, 7.4). 66% of comments were shorter than one minute in duration and 73% were categorized as teaching by observers. The most common subjects of teaching comments were differential diagnosis, management, and testing. Report duration, number of general internists, unscripted reports, and in-person format were associated with significantly increased number of attending comments. CONCLUSIONS: Attending comments in morning report were generally brief, focused on clinical teaching, and covered a wide range of topics. There were substantial differences between programs in terms of the number of comments and their duration which likely affects the local learning environment. Morning report stakeholders that are interested in increasing attending involvement in morning report should consider employing in-person and unscripted reports. Additional studies are needed to explore best practice models of attending participation in morning report.

An Interactive COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Workshop for Internal Medicine Residents and Medical Students.

Introduction Since being first identified in December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in millions of illnesses and deaths worldwide. Despite the safety and availability of effective vaccines that offer protection from severe COVID-19 disease, a sizable minority of the United States population has reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and remains unvaccinated. Methods We developed an interactive workshop for internal medicine residents and medical students in which a framework is utilized to aid the subtyping of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Learners then interactively apply this framework through vaccine counseling in a role-playing exercise. Results The workshop increased confidence in the learner's ability to determine the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy subtype after participation in the workshop (53% preworkshop, 81% postworkshop, p=0.01). The workshop also increased reported confidence in tailoring COVID-19 vaccine counseling after participation in the workshop (60% preworkshop, 90% postworkshop, p=0.005). These gains were also seen when participant learners were compared with nonparticipant learners for both subtyping confidence (81% postworkshop, 26% nonparticipant, p<0.0001) and confidence in providing tailored counseling (90% postworkshop, 60% nonparticipant, p=0.004). Conclusion The implementation of our workshop correlated with an increase in the reported trainee confidence related to COVID-19 vaccine counseling. This offers a promising early step in developing educational programs that build trainee skills in this domain. More work is needed to establish robust curricula to support learners in reaching patients who express COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Virtual Interactive Case-Based Education (VICE): A Conference for Deliberate Practice of Diagnostic Reasoning.

Introduction: Current approaches to teaching diagnostic reasoning minimally address the need for deliberate practice. We developed an educational conference for internal medicine residents to practice diagnostic reasoning and examine how biases affect their differential diagnoses through cognitive autopsies. Methods: We formatted the Virtual Interactive Case-Based Education (VICE) conference as a clinical problem-solving exercise, in which a facilitator presents a case to a single discussant selected from the audience. We delivered VICE on an internet-based conferencing platform with screen-sharing capability over approximately 30 minutes. To maximize learners' psychological safety, we employed an active facilitation model that normalized uncertainty and prioritized the diagnostic process over arriving at the correct diagnosis. Results: Resident attitudes toward VICE were assessed by utilizing a postconference survey and gathering descriptive data for 11 sessions. Ninety-seven percent of respondents (n = 35) felt that VICE was a novel and valuable addition to their curriculum. Qualitative data suggested that positive features of the conference included the opportunity to practice diagnostic reasoning, the single-discussant format, and the supportive learning environment. Discussants reported that holding the conference in person would have negatively impacted their experience. Discussion: Internal medicine residents universally valued the opportunity to engage in deliberate practice of case-based reasoning in a psychologically safe environment during the VICE conference. The virtual nature of the conference contributed significantly to discussants' positive experience. This resource includes all materials necessary to implement VICE, as well as an instructional video on facilitation.

Soluble donor DNA and islet injury after transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: A large proportion of clinical islet transplant recipients fail to initially achieve or sustain meaningful independence from exogenous insulin use. We hypothesized that immediate allograft injury is a key constraint on independence from exogenous insulin use. METHODS: Standard human leukocyte antigen genotyping was reviewed to identify nonshared polymorphisms between 21 prospectively recruited islet transplant recipients from a single institution and their respective donors. Human leukocyte antigen polymorphism-specific quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to quantify donor DNA shed into blood by injured islets from serial sera acquired over the first 10 days postprocedure and examined for correlation with achievement of insulin independence. RESULTS: Nearly fourfold higher serum concentrations of donor DNA were detected in subjects whose grafts failed to generate insulin independence. The median for the average area under the curve in recipients who did and did not achieve insulin independence was 12 (range, 1-61) and 45 (range, 14-255) donor genome equivalents (gEq)-day/mL (p=0.03), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings represent the first direct testing of allograft injury in humans undergoing islet cell transplantation. Injury to donor islets very soon after transplantation may represent an important barrier to achieving insulin independence other than adaptive immune responses targeting allografts at later times. In addition, soluble donor DNA merits further development as a quantifiable biomarker to evaluate new interventions aimed at mitigating immediate islet injury.