Local Culture and Community Through a Digital Lens: Viewpoint on Designing and Implementing a Virtual Second Look Event for Residency Applicants.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic altered how residency interviews occur. Despite 2 years of web-based interviews, these are still perceived as inferior to in-person experiences. Showcasing a program and location is critical for recruitment; however, it is difficult to highlight the program's location and community digitally. This article presents the authors' viewpoints on designing and implementing a virtual second look for residency applicants. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to host a web-based event to feature the benefits of living in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for residency applicants, enhance recruitment efforts, and ensure a successful residency match. The goal was to cover topics that interested all applicants, highlight how Winston-Salem is a special place to live, involve current residents, and engage community members. METHODS: Three programs-child neurology, neurology, and family medicine were chosen for a pilot virtual second look. All residency program directors' were asked to recommend community contacts and help identify residents and faculty who may serve as content experts on one of the topics in the panel discussions. A total of 24 community leaders from restaurants, venues, schools, and businesses were contacted, and 18 agreed to participate. The panel discussions included living in and raising a family in Winston-Salem, experiencing Winston-Salem arts and music, where to eat and drink like a local, and enjoying sports and outdoors in the area. The 2-hour event was hosted on Zoom. Postevent feedback assessments were automatically sent to each registrant through Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). This study was deemed exempt from Wake Forest University Health Sciences institutional review board review (IRB00088703). RESULTS: There were 51 registrants for the event, and 28 of 48 registrants provided postevent feedback, which was positive. The authors found in the MATCH residency results that 2 of 2 child neurology positions, 4 of 6 adult neurology positions, and 1 of 10 family medicine positions attended our second look event. One adult neurology resident who did not participate was an internal candidate. All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the session was valuable, well organized, and met their expectations or goals. Furthermore, all respondents gained new information during this web-based event not obtained during their interview day. CONCLUSIONS: The virtual second look event for residency attendees featured the benefits of living in Winston-Salem, and the perspectives of current residents. Feedback from the session was overall positive; however, a top desire would be devoting more time for the applicants to ask questions directly to the community leaders and our resident trainees. This program could be reproducible by other institutions. It could be broadened to a graduate medical education-wide virtual second look event where all medical and surgical programs could opt to participate, facilitating an equitable opportunity for prospective applicants.

Headache infusion centers: A survey on treatments provided, infusion center operations, and barriers to developing new infusion centers.

BACKGROUND: Infusion therapy refers to the intravenous administration of medicines and fluids for the treatment of status migrainosus, severe persistent headaches, or chronic headache. Headache practices and centers offer this treatment for patients as an alternative to the emergency department (ED) setting. However, little information is available in the literature on understanding the operations of an infusion center. OBJECTIVE: We sought to survey the Inpatient Headache & Emergency Medicine specialty section and the Academic Program Directors listserv of the American Headache Society (AHS) to better understand current practices. METHODS: A survey was advertised and distributed to the listservs of both the Inpatient Headache & Emergency Medicine specialty section and the Academic Program Directors, which combined included both academic and private practices. In addition, the survey was available on laptops at related events at an annual AHS meeting in Scottsdale. RESULTS: Of the 127 members of the combined group of both listservs, 50 responded with an overall survey response rate of 39%. Ten out of fifty were from programs with more than one responder completing the survey, leaving 40 unique headache programs. Academic programs made up the majority of programs (85%, 34/40). The total of 40 participating programs is comparable with the 47 academic headache programs listed on the American Migraine Foundation website at the time of the survey. Of the academic programs surveyed, most were hospital based (n = 23) compared with a satellite location (n = 11). Of all programs surveyed, 68% (27/40) offered infusion therapy. Of those that did not have an infusion practice (n = 13), the most common reason cited was insufficient staffing (n = 8). Key highlights of the survey included the following: The majority of programs offering infusions obtain prior authorization before scheduling (70%, 19/27) and offer patient availability 5 days/week (78%, 21/27) typically only during business hours (81%, 22/27). Programs reported that they typically give three to four medications during each infusion session (72%, 18/25). Treatment paradigms varied between programs. Programs surveyed were concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States. CONCLUSION: The limited number of headache infusion centers overall may contribute to the limited ability of headache infusion centers to prevent ED migraine visits. Headache patients can have unpredictable headache onset, and most of the infusion practices surveyed appeared to adapt to this by offering infusions most days during a work week. However, this need for multiple days per week may also explain the most common reason for not having an infusion practice, which is insufficient staffing. Various treatment paradigms are implemented by different practitioners, and future studies will have to focus on investigation of best practice.

Telehealth as a new care delivery model: The headache provider experience.

OBJECTIVE: To assess telehealth practice for headache visits in the United States. BACKGROUND: The rapid roll out of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted headache specialists. METHODS: American Headache Society (AHS) members were emailed an anonymous survey (9/9/20-10/12/20) to complete if they had logged ≥2 months or 50+ headache visits via telehealth. RESULTS: Out of 1348 members, 225 (16.7%) responded. Most were female (59.8%; 113/189). Median age was 47 (interquartile range [IQR] 37-57) (N = 154). The majority were MD/DOs (83.7%; 159/190) or NP/PAs (14.7%; 28/190), and most (65.1%; 123/189) were in academia. Years in practice were 0-3: 28; 4-10: 58; 11-20: 42; 20+: 61. Median number of telehealth visits was 120 (IQR 77.5-250) in the prior 3 months. Respondents were "comfortable/very comfortable" treating via telehealth (a) new patient with a chief complaint of headache (median, IQR 4 [3-5]); (b) follow-up for migraine (median, IQR 5 [5-5]); (c) follow-up for secondary headache (median, IQR 4 [3-4]). About half (51.1%; 97/190) offer urgent telehealth. Beyond being unable to perform procedures, top barriers were conducting parts of the neurologic exam (157/189), absence of vital signs (117/189), and socioeconomic/technologic barriers (91/189). Top positive attributes were patient convenience (185/190), reducing patient travel stress (172/190), patient cost reduction (151/190), flexibility with personal matters (128/190), patient comfort at home (114/190), and patient medications nearby (103/190). Only 21.3% (33/155) of providers said telehealth visit length differed from in-person visits, and 55.3% (105/190) believe that the no-show rate improved. On a 1-5 Likert scale, providers were "interested"/"very interested" in digitally prescribing headache apps (median 4, IQR 3-5) and "interested"/"very interested" in remotely monitoring patient symptoms (median 4, IQR 3-5). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents were comfortable treating patients with migraine via telehealth. They note positive attributes for patients and how access may be improved. Technology innovations (remote vital signs, digitally prescribing headache apps) and remote symptom monitoring are areas of interest and warrant future research.

Incidental Findings and Normal Anatomical Variants on Brain MRI in Children for Primary Headaches.

When MRI scans of the brain are obtained for evaluation of primary headaches in children, incidental findings and anatomical variants are commonly present. After a review of the prevalence, 11 types are presented.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Management of a First Unprovoked Seizure in Children and Adolescents With a Focus on the Revised Diagnostic Criteria for Epilepsy.

By definition, unprovoked seizures are not precipitated by an identifiable factor, such as fever or trauma. A thorough history and physical examination are essential to caring for pediatric patients with a potential first unprovoked seizure. Differential diagnosis, EEG, neuroimaging, laboratory tests, and initiation of treatment will be reviewed. Treatment is typically initiated after 2 unprovoked seizures, or after 1 seizure in select patients with distinct epilepsy syndromes. Recent expansion of the definition of epilepsy by the ILAE allows for the diagnosis of epilepsy to be made after the first seizure if the clinical presentation and supporting diagnostic studies suggest a greater than 60% chance of a second seizure. This review summarizes the current literature on the diagnostic and therapeutic management of first unprovoked seizure in children and adolescents while taking into consideration the revised diagnostic criteria of epilepsy.