Recent Publications by CFE Educators

PURPOSE

Health professions education scholarship units (HPESUs) are organizational structures within which a group is substantively engaged in health professions education scholarship. Little research investigates the strategies employed by HPESU administrative leaders to secure and maintain HPESU success. Using institutional entrepreneurship as a theoretical lens, this study asks: Do HPESU administrative leaders act as institutional entrepreneurs (IEs)?

METHOD

This study recontextualizes two preexisting qualitative datasets that comprised interviews with leaders in health professions education in Canada (2011-2012) and Australia and New Zealand (2013-1014). Two researchers iteratively analyzed the data using the institutional entrepreneurship construct until consensus was achieved. A third investigator independently reviewed and contributed to the recontextualized analyses. A summary of the analyses was shared with all authors, and their feedback was incorporated into the final interpretations.

RESULTS

HPESU leaders act as IEs in three ways. First, HPESU leaders construct arguments and position statements about how the HPESU resolves an institution's problem(s). This theorization discourse justifies the existence and support of the HPESU. Second, the leaders strategically cultivate relationships with the leader of the institution within which the HPESU sits, the leaders of large academic groups with which the HPESU partners, and the clinician educators who want careers in health professions education. Third, the leaders work to increase the local visibility of the HPESU.

CONCLUSIONS

Practical insights into how institutional leaders interested in launching an HPESU can harness these findings are discussed.

BACKGROUND

Spinal surgery costs vary significantly across hospitals and regions, but there is insufficient understanding of what drives this variation.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the factors underlying the cost variation for lumbar laminectomy/discectomy and lumbar fusions.

METHODS

We obtained patient information (age, gender, race, severity of illness, risk of mortality, population of county of residence, median zipcode income, insurance status, elective vs nonelective admission, length of stay) and hospital data (region, hospital type, bed size, wage index) for all patients who underwent lumbar laminectomy/discectomy (n = 181 267) or lumbar fusions (n = 433 364) for degenerative conditions in the 2001 to 2013 National Inpatient Sample database. We performed unadjusted and adjusted analyses to determine which factors affect cost.

RESULTS

Mean costs for lumbar laminectomy/discectomy and lumbar fusion increased from $8316 and $21 473 in 2001 (in inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars), to $11 405 and $29 438, respectively, in 2013. There was significant regional variation in cost, with the West being the most expensive region across all years and showing the steepest increase in cost over time. After adjusting for patient and hospital factors, the West was 23% more expensive than the Northeast for lumbar laminectomy/discectomy, and 25% more expensive than the Northeast for lumbar fusion ( P .01). Higher wage index, smaller hospital bed size, and rural/urban nonteaching hospital type were also associated with higher cost for lumbar laminectomy/discectomy and fusion ( P .01).

CONCLUSION

After adjusting for patient factors and wage index, the Western region, hospitals with smaller bed sizes, and rural/urban nonteaching hospitals were associated with higher costs for lumbar laminectomy/discectomy and lumbar fusion.

BACKGROUND 

Improving the quality of health care and education has become a mandate at all levels within the medical profession. While several published quality improvement (QI) assessment tools exist, all have limitations in addressing the range of QI projects undertaken by learners in undergraduate medical education, graduate medical education, and continuing medical education.

OBJECTIVE 

We developed and validated a tool to assess QI projects with learner engagement across the educational continuum.

METHODS 

After reviewing existing tools, we interviewed local faculty who taught QI to understand how learners were engaged and what these faculty wanted in an ideal assessment tool. We then developed a list of competencies associated with QI, established items linked to these competencies, revised the items using an iterative process, and collected validity evidence for the tool.

RESULTS 

The resulting Multi-Domain Assessment of Quality Improvement Projects (MAQIP) rating tool contains 9 items, with criteria that may be completely fulfilled, partially fulfilled, or not fulfilled. Interrater reliability was 0.77. Untrained local faculty were able to use the tool with minimal guidance.

CONCLUSIONS 

The MAQIP is a 9-item, user-friendly tool that can be used to assess QI projects at various stages and to provide formative and summative feedback to learners at all levels.

We describe a program called "Caring Wisely"®, developed by the University of California, San Francisco's (UCSF), Center for Healthcare Value, to increase the value of services provided at UCSF Health. The overarching goal of the Caring Wisely® program is to catalyze and advance delivery system redesign and innovations that reduce costs, enhance healthcare quality, and improve health outcomes. The program is designed to engage frontline clinicians and staff-aided by experienced implementation scientists-to develop and implement interventions specifically designed to address overuse, underuse, or misuse of services. Financial savings of the program are intended to cover the program costs. The theoretical underpinnings for the design of the Caring Wisely® program emphasize the importance of stakeholder engagement, behavior change theory, market (target audience) segmentation, and process measurement and feedback. The Caring Wisely® program provides an institutional model for using crowdsourcing to identify "hot spot" areas of low-value care, inefficiency and waste, and for implementing robust interventions to address these areas.

A 42-year-old woman at 29 weeks gestation via in vitro fertilization who presented with eight metastatic brain lesions received Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery (GKSRS) at our institution. In this study, we report our clinical experience and a general procedure of determining the fetal dose from patient-specific treatment plans and we describe quality assurance measurements to guide the safe practice of multi-target GKSRS of pregnant patients. To estimate fetal dose pre-treatment, peripheral dose-to-focal dose ratios (PFRs) were measured in a phantom at the distance approximating the fundus of uterus. Post-treatment, fetal dose was calculated from the actual patient treatment plan. Quality assurance measurements were carried out via the extrapolation dosimetry method in a head phantom at increasing distances along the longitudinal axis. The measurements were then empirically fitted and the fetal dose was extracted from the curve. The computed and measured fetal dose values were compared with each other and associated radiation risk was estimated. Based on low estimated fetal dose from preliminary phantom measurements, the patient was accepted for GKSRS. Eight brain metastases were treated with prescription doses of 15-19 Gy over 143 min involving all collimator sizes as well as composite sector mixed shots. Direct fetal dose computation based on the actual patient's treatment plan estimated a maximum fetal dose of 0.253 cGy, which was in agreement with surface dose measurements at the level of the patient's uterine fundus during the actual treatment. Later phantom measurements also estimated fetal dose to be in the range of 0.21-0.28 cGy (dose extrapolation curve R = 0.998). Using the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) population-based model, we estimate the fetal risk of secondary malignancy, which is the primary toxicity after 25 weeks gestation, to be less than 0.01%. Of note, the patient delivered the baby via scheduled cesarean section at 36 weeks without complications attributable to the GKSRS procedure. GKSRS of multiple brain metastases was demonstrated to be safe and feasible during pregnancy. The applicability of a general patient-specific fetal dose determination method was also demonstrated for the first time for such a treatment.

Construct: Authors examined whether a new vignette-based instrument could isolate and quantify heuristic bias.

BACKGROUND

Heuristics are cognitive shortcuts that may introduce bias and contribute to error. There is no standardized instrument available to quantify heuristic bias in clinical decision making, limiting future study of educational interventions designed to improve calibration of medical decisions. This study presents validity data to support a vignette-based instrument quantifying bias due to the anchoring, availability, and representativeness heuristics.

APPROACH

Participants completed questionnaires requiring assignment of probabilities to potential outcomes of medical and nonmedical scenarios. The instrument randomly presented scenarios in one of two versions: Version A, encouraging heuristic bias, and Version B, worded neutrally. The primary outcome was the difference in probability judgments for Version A versus Version B scenario options.

RESULTS

Of 167 participants recruited, 139 enrolled. Participants assigned significantly higher mean probability values to Version A scenario options (M = 9.56, SD = 3.75) than Version B (M = 8.98, SD = 3.76), t(1801) = 3.27, p = .001. This result remained significant analyzing medical scenarios alone (Version A, M = 9.41, SD = 3.92; Version B, M = 8.86, SD = 4.09), t(1204) = 2.36, p = .02. Analyzing medical scenarios by heuristic revealed a significant difference between Version A and B for availability (Version A, M = 6.52, SD = 3.32; Version B, M = 5.52, SD = 3.05), t(404) = 3.04, p = .003, and representativeness (Version A, M = 11.45, SD = 3.12; Version B, M = 10.67, SD = 3.71), t(396) = 2.28, p = .02, but not anchoring. Stratifying by training level, students maintained a significant difference between Version A and B medical scenarios (Version A, M = 9.83, SD = 3.75; Version B, M = 9.00, SD = 3.98), t(465) = 2.29, p = .02, but not residents or attendings. Stratifying by heuristic and training level, availability maintained significance for students (Version A, M = 7.28, SD = 3.46; Version B, M = 5.82, SD = 3.22), t(153) = 2.67, p = .008, and residents (Version A, M = 7.19, SD = 3.24; Version B, M = 5.56, SD = 2.72), t(77) = 2.32, p = .02, but not attendings.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors developed an instrument to isolate and quantify bias produced by the availability and representativeness heuristics, and illustrated the utility of their instrument by demonstrating decreased heuristic bias within medical contexts at higher training levels.

In both acute and chronic pain conditions, women tend to be more sensitive than men. This sex difference may be regulated by estrogens, such as estradiol, that are synthesized in the spinal cord and brainstem and act locally to influence pain processing. To identify a potential cellular source of local estrogen, here we examined the expression of aromatase, the enzyme that catalyzes the conversion of testosterone to estradiol. Our studies focused on primary afferent neurons and on their central targets in the spinal cord and medulla as well as in the nucleus of the solitary tract, the target of nodose ganglion-derived visceral afferents. Immunohistochemical staining in an aromatase reporter mouse revealed that many neurons in laminae I and V of the spinal cord dorsal horn and caudal spinal trigeminal nucleus and in the nucleus of the solitary tract express aromatase. The great majority of these cells also express inhibitory interneuron markers. We did not find sex differences in aromatase expression and neither the pattern nor the number of neurons changed in a sciatic nerve transection model of neuropathic pain or in the Complete Freund's adjuvant model of inflammatory pain. A few aromatase neurons express Fos after cheek injection of capsaicin, formalin, or chloroquine. In total, given their location, these aromatase neurons are poised to engage nociceptive circuits, whether it is through local estrogen synthesis or inhibitory neurotransmitter release.

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend daily delirium monitoring of hospitalized patients. Available delirium-screening tools have not been validated for use by nurses among diverse inpatients.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to validate the Nursing Delirium-Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) under these circumstances.

METHODS

A blinded cross-sectional and quality-improvement study was conducted from August 2015-February 2016. Nurses׳ Nu-DESC scores were compared to delirium diagnosis according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) criteria. A total of 405 consecutive hospitalized patients were included. Nu-DESC-positive (threshold score ≥2) patients were matched with equal numbers of Nu-DESC-negative patients, by sex, age, and nursing unit. Nurses recorded a Nu-DESC score for each patient on every 12-hour shift. A Nu-DESC-blinded evaluator interviewed patients for 2 consecutive days. Delirium diagnosis was determined by physicians using DSM-5 criteria applied to collected research data. Sensitivity and specificity of the Nu-DESC were calculated. In an exploratory analysis, the performance of the Nu-DESC was analyzed with the addition of bedside measures of attention.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of the Nu-DESC at a threshold of ≥2 was 42% (95% CI: 33-53%). Specificity was 98% (97-98%). At a threshold of ≥1, sensitivity was 67% (52-80%) and specificity 93% (90-95%). Similar results were found with the addition of attention tasks.

CONCLUSION

The Nu-DESC is a specific delirium detection tool, but it is not sensitive at the usually proposed cut point of ≥2. Using a threshold of ≥1 or adding a test of attention increase sensitivity with a minor decrease in specificity.