Audit of Sex and Gender Medicine Topics in Preclinical School of Medicine Curriculum.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of the inclusion of sex and gender medicine (SGM) in medical education has been recognized formally by both the American Association of Medical Colleges and the Department of Health and Human Services since 1995. Yet, few medical schools, including the Medical College of Wisconsin, have a standard SGM curriculum. This work mapped the SGM health topics taught in the Medical College of Wisconsin preclinical curriculum. METHODS: Seven medical students audited 16 basic science preclinical courses in 2020-2021. SGM characterizations, including epidemiology, diagnosis, presentation, treatment, prognosis, pharmacology, and disparity, were captured by an online survey tool. Comparisons were made to 38 high-yield topics presented in the textbook "How Sex and Gender Impact Clinical Practice: An Evidence-Based Guide to Patient Care." RESULTS: Of the 604 preclinical sessions audited, 54% contained some SGM content. Epidemiology was the most common characterization (23% of total). Thirty-four of the 38 high-yield clinical SGM topics received mention in the basic science sessions. Breast cancer, stroke, osteoporosis, sex and gender considerations in therapeutic response, and systemic lupus erythematosus had the most frequent SGM-specific coverage (representation in at least 4 of the 16 preclinical courses). CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing a medical student cohort to thoroughly audit courses was an effective way to document that Medical College of Wisconsin preclinical curriculum introduces many clinically relevant SGM topics. However, the audit also discovered varying levels of detail among the high-yield topics with concern that students may not be adequately prepared to treat all patients. These results establish the groundwork for a more formalized and integrated approach to include SGM in preclinical curriculum.

Good working relationships: how healthcare system proximity influences trust between healthcare workers.

Trust between healthcare workers is a fundamental component of effective, interprofessional collaboration and teamwork. However, little is known about how this trust is built, particularly when healthcare workers are distributed (i.e., not co-located and lack a shared electronic health record). We interviewed 39 healthcare workers who worked with proximal and distributed colleagues to care for patients with diabetic foot ulcers and analyzed transcripts using content analysis. Generally, building trust was a process that occurred over time, starting with an introduction and proceeding through iterative cycles of communication and working together to coordinate care for shared patients. Proximal, compared to distributed, dyads had more options available for interactions which, in turn, facilitated communication and working together to build trust. Distributed healthcare workers found it more difficult to develop trusting relationships and relied heavily on individual initiative to do so. Few effective tools existed at the level of interprofessional collaborations, teams, or broader healthcare systems to support trust between distributed healthcare workers. With increasing use of distributed interprofessional collaborations and teams, future efforts should focus on fostering this critical attribute.

Expect delays: poor connections between rural and urban health systems challenge multidisciplinary care for rural Americans with diabetic foot ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Rural Americans with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) face a 50% increased risk of major amputation compared to their urban counterparts. We sought to identify health system barriers contributing to this disparity. METHODS: We interviewed 44 participants involved in the care of rural patients with DFUs: 6 rural primary care providers (PCPs), 12 rural specialists, 12 urban specialists, 9 support staff, and 5 patients/caregivers. Directed content analysis was performed guided by a conceptual model describing how PCPs and specialists collaborate to care for shared patients. RESULTS: Rural PCPs reported lack of training in wound care and quickly referred patients with DFUs to local podiatrists or wound care providers. Timely referrals to, and subsequent collaborations with, rural specialists were facilitated by professional connections. However, these connections often were lacking between rural providers and urban specialists, whose skills were needed to optimally treat patients with high acuity ulcers. Urban referrals, particularly to vascular surgery or infectious disease, were stymied by 1) time-consuming processes, 2) negative provider interactions, and 3) multiple, disconnected electronic health record systems. Such barriers ultimately detracted from rural PCPs' ability to focus on medical management, as well as urban specialists' ability to appropriately triage referrals due to lacking information. Subsequent collaboration between providers also suffered as a result. CONCLUSIONS: Poor connections across rural and urban healthcare systems was described as the primary health system barrier driving the rural disparity in major amputations. Future interventions focusing on mitigating this barrier could reduce the rural disparity in major amputations.

A systematic review of multidisciplinary teams to reduce major amputations for patients with diabetic foot ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple single-center studies have reported significant reductions in major amputations among patients with diabetic foot ulcers after initiation of multidisciplinary teams. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between multidisciplinary teams (ie, two or more types of clinicians working together) and the risk of major amputation and to compile descriptions of these diverse teams. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through May 24, 2019 for studies reporting the association between multidisciplinary teams and major amputation rates for patients with diabetic foot ulcers. We included original studies if ≥50% of the patients seen by the multidisciplinary team had diabetes, they included a control group, and they reported the effect of a multidisciplinary team on major amputation rates. Studies were excluded if they were non-English language, abstracts only, or unpublished. We used the five-domain Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety Model to describe team composition and function and summarized changes in major amputation rates associated with multidisciplinary team care. A meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity across studies, their observational designs, and the potential for uncontrolled confounding (PROSPERO No. 2017: CRD42017067915). RESULTS: We included 33 studies, none of which were randomized trials. Multidisciplinary team composition and functions were highly diverse. However, four elements were common across teams: teams were composed of medical and surgical disciplines; larger teams benefitted from having a "captain" and a nuclear and ancillary team member structure; clear referral pathways and care algorithms supported timely, comprehensive care; and multidisciplinary teams addressed four key tasks: glycemic control, local wound management, vascular disease, and infection. Ninety-four percent (31/33) of studies reported a reduction in major amputations after institution of a multidisciplinary team. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary team composition was variable but reduced major amputations in 94% of studies. Teams consistently addressed glycemic control, local wound management, vascular disease, and infection in a timely and coordinated manner to reduce major amputation for patients with diabetic foot ulcerations. Care algorithms and referral pathways were key tools to their success.

Increasing SBP variability is associated with an increased risk of developing incident diabetic foot ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: SBP variability may be a target for mitigating end-organ damage associated with vascular disease. We evaluated the relationship between increased SBP variability and risk of incident diabetic foot ulceration. METHODS: Using a nested case-control design, we followed patients diagnosed with diabetes and treated within the US Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare system for development of a diabetic foot ulcer (event) between 2006 and 2010. Each case was randomly matched to up to five controls based on age, sex, race/ethnicity, and calendar time. SBP variability was computed using at least three blood pressure measurements from the year preceding the event. The association between SBP variability and foot ulceration was examined using conditional logistic regression. Potential protective effects of calcium channel blockers, which blunt SBP variability, were also explored. RESULTS: The study sample included 51 111 cases and 129 247 controls. Compared with those in quartile 1 (lowest variability), patients in quartiles 2-4 had higher adjusted odds ratios for diabetic foot ulcer development: 1.11 (95% CI 1.07-1.16), 1.20 (95% CI 1.15-1.25), 1.29 (95% CI 1.24-1.34) (P for trend <0.001). Calcium channel blockers were associated with reduced risks of ulceration for those without peripheral vascular disease (OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.84-0.90, P < 0.001) or neuropathy (OR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.82-0.89, P < 0.001) in adjusted subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: This study describes a graded relationship between SBP variability and risk of diabetic foot ulceration, providing a potential new and modifiable target to reduce this common complication.