Nurse-doctor co-teaching: A path towards interprofessional collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Nurse-doctor collaborations are essential for team-based patient care. Although there are increasing calls for interprofessional education, teaching and learning together is rare. In 2019, we designed a Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching pilot programme to provide an opportunity for nurses and doctors to co-teach junior doctors and nurses. We aimed to explore the experiences of the co-teachers and understand their perceptions of teaching together. The study was conducted through the lens of positioning theory. METHODS: We held an hour-long focus group discussion and follow-up one-on-one interviews with nurses and doctors who participated as co-teachers. Conversations were audio-video recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed. The Partners Institutional Review Board approved this study. RESULTS: Three nurses and four doctors participated in the focus group conversation, and four nurses and two doctors participated in individual interviews. Participant narratives provided insight into shifts in hospital culture that would be necessary to promote effective interprofessional learning and collaboration: (1) break down professional silos, (2) invite the nursing perspective, (3) flatten professional hierarchies, and (4) recognise nurses as clinical teachers. CONCLUSION: Nurses and doctors felt they shared a collegial and equal partnership as co-teachers. But this relationship was not typical of their daily clinical roles. Institutional barriers presented challenges to collaboration on the hospital floor and nursing participation in teaching. Successful interprofessional education may require culture and policy shifts that formally recognise nurses as valuable clinical teachers.

Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching: A Pilot Study of the Design, Development, and Implementation of Structured Interprofessional Co-Teaching Sessions.

INTRODUCTION: High levels of interprofessional collaboration are beneficial for patients and healthcare providers. Co-teaching may be one method for creating a collaborative environment. This pilot study designed, developed, and implemented Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching on an inpatient medicine service. METHODS: Ten Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching pairs designed 30-minute, structured co-teaching sessions with learning objectives, evidence-based content, interactive teaching strategies and a Take-Away of key content with the help of a coaching team. Each session was presented by a nurse and senior doctor to nurse and resident learners. Our assessment blueprint included: 1. Anonymous surveys assessing the overall rating of each session and 2. Pre- and post-anonymous surveys assessing measures of interprofessional collaboration and communication between nurses and residents before and after the series of ten co-teaching sessions. RESULTS: Data from ten post-session surveys included 121 of 156 participants (77.6%). Attendance at each session ranged from 13-19 participants with 8-17 participants completing a survey per session for an average of 12.1 surveys analyzed. All Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching sessions scored in the excellent range between 1.00 and 1.43 on a Likert scale (1 is excellent and 5 is poor). In response to the question "What did you like best?", interactive teaching strategies was the most frequent spontaneous answer. A significant correlation between the number of interactive teaching strategies and enjoyability of the session (p-value=0.01) was observed. Measures of interprofessional collaboration and communication did not change significantly in the pre-intervention compared to post-intervention period. CONCLUSION: We created a unique model of interprofessional co-teaching on an inpatient service. The overall excellent ratings of our interactive sessions indicate that Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching is a valued form of learning. Our structured format is adaptable to various medical settings and could be expanded to include additional allied health professionals. We plan further studies to assess if Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching improves measures of interprofessional collaboration.

Opportunity to reduce transfer of patients with mild traumatic brain injury and intracranial hemorrhage to a Level 1 trauma center.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines do not address the disposition of patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) and resultant intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Emergency medicine clinicians working in hospitals without neurosurgery coverage typically transfer patients with both to a trauma center with neurosurgery capability. Evidence is accruing which demonstrates that the risk of neurologic decompensation depends on the type of ICH and as a result, not every patient may need to be transferred. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for admission among patients with mild TBI and ICH who were transferred from a community hospital to the emergency department (ED) of a Level 1 trauma center. METHODS: Study subjects were patients ≥18years of age who were transferred from a community hospital to the ED of an urban, academic Level 1 trauma center between April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016, and with an isolated traumatic ICH. Patients who had an epidural hematoma, were deemed to require a trauma center's level of service, were found to have non-traumatic ICHs, or had a Glasgow Coma Scale of <13 were excluded. Using a multivariable logistic regression model, we sought to determine patient factors and Computed Tomography (CT) findings which were associated with admission (to the floor, intensive care unit, or operating room with neurosurgery) of the Level 1 trauma center. RESULTS: 644 transferred patients were identified; 205 remained eligible after exclusion criteria. Presence of warfarin (odds ratio [OR] 4.09, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.64, 10.25, p=0.0026) and a subdural hematoma (SDH) ≥1 cm (OR 6.28, 95% CI 1.24, 31.71, p=0.0263) were independently statistically significant factors predicting admission. Age, sex, GCS, presence of neurologic deficit, aspirin use, clopidogrel use, SDH <1 cm, IPH, and SAH were each independently not significant predictive factors of an admission. CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for factors, transferred patients with mild TBI with a SDH ≥1 cm or on warfarin have a higher odds ratio of requiring inpatient admission to a Level 1 trauma center. While these patients may require admission, there may be opportunities to develop and study a low risk traumatic intracranial hemorrhage protocol, which keeps a subgroup of patients with a mild TBI and resultant ICH at community hospitals with access to a nearby Level 1 trauma center.

The commercialization of genome-editing technologies.

The emergence of new gene-editing technologies is profoundly transforming human therapeutics, agriculture, and industrial biotechnology. Advances in clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) have created a fertile environment for mass-scale manufacturing of cost-effective products ranging from basic research to translational medicine. In our analyses, we evaluated the patent landscape of gene-editing technologies and found that in comparison to earlier gene-editing techniques, CRISPR has gained significant traction and this has established dominance. Although most of the gene-editing technologies originated from the industry, CRISPR has been pioneered by academic research institutions. The spinout of CRISPR biotechnology companies from academic institutions demonstrates a shift in entrepreneurship strategies that were previously led by the industry. These academic institutions, and their subsequent companies, are competing to generate comprehensive intellectual property portfolios to rapidly commercialize CRISPR products. Our analysis shows that the emergence of CRISPR has resulted in a fivefold increase in genome-editing bioenterprise investment over the last year. This entrepreneurial movement has spurred a global biotechnology revolution in the realization of novel gene-editing technologies. This global shift in bioenterprise will continue to grow as the demand for personalized medicine, genetically modified crops and environmentally sustainable biofuels increases. However, the monopolization of intellectual property, negative public perception of genetic engineering and ambiguous regulatory policies may limit the growth of these market segments.