scholarly journals 4556 Gender homophily in translational collaborations; a network analysis study of investigators at one academic medical center

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (s1) ◽  
pp. 118-118
Author(s):  
Reza Yousefi Nooraie ◽  
Elizabeth Wayman ◽  
Ann Dozier
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Male Partner ◽  
Collaboration Network ◽  
Basic Sciences ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Personal Connections ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Multi Level

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Collaborations are at the core of translational science and team science. Differences by gender have been identified in various research contexts from recruitment to retention to promotion. This study assesses the relational associations of translational collaborations, and what role of gender. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: In 2011 and 2013, clinical and basic sciences investigators at University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry responded to an online survey nominating their research collaborators. Two study years were merged, and name lists were transformed into a collaboration network. Departments were classified into basic sciences (e.g. biochemistry) and clinical (e.g. urology). If respondent and partner were affiliated to different department classes, the collaboration was defined as translational. Multi-level GLM models were developed to assess the associates of the likelihood of translational vs. within discipline collaborations. Partner nominations were nested in respondents. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: 202 respondents were included in the multi-level GLM models. A collaboration was more likely to be translational if the respondent shared more collaborators with the partner (OR:1.13), and respondent was a central actor in collaboration network (OR: 1.2). Translational collaborations were less likely to be reported by clinicians (OR: 0.25). In the model to assess gender match, a collaboration was more likely to be translational if the respondent was male, and nominated a male partner. For both genders, collaboration with a partner of the opposite gender was more likely to be translational if respondent had more shared collaborators with the partner. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Translational collaborations happen in teams. Gender homophily exits in translational collaborations, and is reduced by shared collaborators; implying the effect of personal connections and community membership. Community-building interventions may increase diversity in translational collaborations.

scholarly journals Identifying disincentives to ethics consultation requests among physicians, advance practice providers, and nurses: a quality improvement all staff survey at a tertiary academic medical center

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynette Cederquist ◽  
Jamie Nicole LaBuzetta ◽  
Edward Cachay ◽  
Lawrence Friedman ◽  
Cassia Yi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Ethics Consultation ◽  
Consult Service ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Knowing How ◽  
Academic Medical

Abstract Background Ethics consult services are well established, but often remain underutilized. Our aim was to identify the barriers and perceptions of the Ethics consult service for physicians, advance practice providers (APPs), and nurses at our urban academic medical center which might contribute to underutilization. Methods This was a cross-sectional single-health system, anonymous written online survey, which was developed by the UCSD Health Clinical Ethics Committee and distributed by Survey Monkey. We compare responses between physicians, APPs, and nurses using standard parametric and non-parametric statistical methods. Satisfaction with ethics consult and likelihood of calling Ethics service again were assessed using a 0–100 scale using a 5-likert response structured (0 being “not helpful at all” to 100 being “extremely helpful”) and results presented using box plots and interquartile ranges (IQR). Results From January to July 2019, approximately 3800 surveys were sent to all physicians, APPs and nurses with a return rate of 5.5—10%. Although the majority of respondents had encountered an ethical dilemma (85–92.1%) only approximately half had ever requested an Ethics consult. The primary reason for physicians never having requested a consult was that they never felt the need for help (41%). For APPs the primary reasons were not knowing an Ethics consult service was available (33.3%) or not knowing how to contact Ethics (27.8%). For nurses, it was not knowing how to contact the Ethics consult service (30.8%) or not feeling the need for help (26.2%). The median satisfaction score (IQR) for Ethics consult services rated on a 0–100 scale, from physicians was 76 (29), for AAPs 89 (49), and nurses 70 (40) (p = 0.62). The median (IQR) of likelihood of consulting Ethics in the future also on a 0–100 scale was 71 (47) for physicians, 69 (45) for APPs, and 61 (45) for nurses (p = 0.79). APP’s and nurses were significantly more likely than physicians to believe that the team did not act on the Ethics consult’s recommendations. Conclusions Based on the results presented, we were able to identify actionable steps to better engage healthcare providers—and in particular APPs and nurses—and scale up institutional educational efforts to increase awareness of the role of the Ethics consult service at our institution. Actionable steps included implementing a system of ongoing feedback that is critical for the sustainability of the Ethics service role. We hope this project can serve as a blueprint for other hospital-based Ethics consult services to improve the quality of their programs.

scholarly journals Identifying Disincentives to Ethics Consultation Requests Among Physicians, Advance Practice Providers, and Nurses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynette Carol Cederquist ◽  
Jamie LaBuzetta ◽  
Edward Cachay ◽  
Lawrence Friedman ◽  
Cassia Yi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Ethics Consultation ◽  
Consult Service ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
Academic Medical

Abstract Background: Ethics consult services are well established, but often remain underutilized. Our aim was to identify the barriers and perceptions of the Ethics consult service at our urban academic medical center which might contribute to underutilization.Methods: This was a cross-sectional single-center, anonymous written online survey, developed by the UCSD Ethics committee, distributed by Survey Monkey, in January 2019, to a total of 3,800 clinicians at a tertiary care academic medical center. This was a quality improvement project, so IRB approval was waived. Results: Approximately 3,800 surveys were sent to physicians, advance practice providers (APPs) and nurses with a return rate of 5.5 - 10%. The majority of respondents had encountered an ethical dilemma although only half had ever requested an ethics consult. We found that there were 4 general reasons people did not consult Ethics: 1.) unawareness of the existence of or means of contacting the Ethics service. 2.) a priori perceptions that an Ethics consult would not be helpful or might slow down decision making. 3.) experiencing a poor quality consult in the past, including variability in knowledge and ability among various consultants, 4) a consult did not improve the situation, or lacked specific guidance from the consultant.Conclusions: Based on our survey results, we proposed the following methods of reducing barriers to use of an Ethics consult service: 1) Consults need to offer specific recommendations 2) set expectations for the consultation process and outcome; 3) ensure that Ethics consultants have strong training; 4) more actively engage nursing staff, and 5) better inform clinicians about the availability of the Ethics consult service.

scholarly journals Multi-Level Stakeholder Perspectives on Determinants of Point of Care Ultrasound Implementation in a US Academic Medical Center

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 1172
Author(s):  
Anna M. Maw ◽  
Megan A. Morris ◽  
Juliana G. Barnard ◽  
Juliana Wilson ◽  
Russell E. Glasgow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
High Fidelity ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Fidelity Implementation

There is growing interest from multiple specialties, including internal medicine, to incorporate diagnostic point of care ultrasound (POCUS) into standard clinical care. However, few internists currently use POCUS. The objective of this study was to understand the current determinants of POCUS adoption at both the health system and clinician level at a U.S. academic medical center from the perspective of multi-level stakeholders. We performed semi-structured interviews of multi-level stakeholders including hospitalists, subspecialists, and hospital leaders at an academic medical center in the U.S. Questions regarding the determinants of POCUS adoption were asked of study participants. Using the framework method, team-based analysis of interview transcripts were guided by the contextual domains of the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM). Thirty-one stakeholders with diverse roles in POCUS adoption were interviewed. Analysis of interviews revealed three overarching themes that stakeholders considered important to adoption by clinicians and health systems: clinical impact, efficiency and cost. Subthemes included two that were deemed essential to high-fidelity implementation: the development of credentialing policies and robust quality assurance processes. These findings identify potential determinants of system and clinician level adoption that may be leveraged to achieve high-fidelity implementation of POCUS applications that result in improved patient outcomes.

Outpatient hematologist and oncologist perceptions of inpatient continuity visits at an urban academic medical center.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 99-99
Author(s):  
Christopher Chen ◽  
Sara DeGregorio ◽  
Margaret Soriano ◽  
Inga Tolin Lennes ◽  
Ryan Thompson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Massachusetts General Hospital ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Incentive Payment ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Inpatient And Outpatient Care

99 Background: In 2012, in an effort to improve continuity between inpatient and outpatient care, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) began sending automated email notifications to outpatient physicians when patients with whom they have an established relationship are admitted to MGH. Physicians are allowed to bill internally for a “continuity visit” if they visit their patient during an inpatient stay. We sought to study MGH hematologist and oncologist perceptions of care continuity and the efficacy of this continuity visit program. Methods: In the summer of 2015, all MGH hematology and oncology attending physicians, regardless of whether they had previously billed for a continuity visit, were provided a small financial incentive to participate in an online survey. Ninety-one of 116 physicians responded to the survey (78%). Results: Of the respondents, 74% had previously billed for a continuity visit, although others may have performed continuity visits without formally billing for them. Ninety-six percent of respondents felt that continuity visits are either highly useful or moderately useful to their patients, namely because patients view continuity visits as an expression of interest in their well-being (90%) and/or as a welcome surprise (58%). Ninety-one percent of respondents felt that continuity visits are highly or moderately useful to the inpatient team, because they are able to informally share clinical insights that improve clinical care (71%) and/or answer questions or confirm the inpatient attending’s plan of care (79%). Furthermore, 72% of respondents felt that continuity visits improve their longitudinal relationship with their patients. Lastly, 84% of respondents expressed high or moderate satisfaction with making continuity visits. Conclusions: MGH hematologists and oncologists reported that visiting their hospitalized patients is useful to inpatient care teams and their patients. A small incentive payment may encourage such continuity visits. The next step is to evaluate whether continuity visits make a difference in clinical outcomes, such as patient experience, readmissions, and inpatient length-of-stay.

Evaluation of Radiology Reports by the Emergency Department Clinical Providers: A Message to Radiologists

2020 ◽  
pp. 084653712090206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Waleed Abdellatif ◽  
Jeffrey Ding ◽  
Abdelmohsen Radwan Hussien ◽  
Ali Hussain ◽  
Shahin Shirzad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Radiology Reports ◽  
Standardized Report ◽  
Academic Medical

Objectives: This study is an evaluation of the emergency department (ED) satisfaction with the current radiologic reporting system used at a major Northeastern academic medical center. The radiology reports are the main form of communication and usually the final product of any radiological investigation delivered to clinicians. The aim of this study was to improve current radiology reporting practices and to better tailor reports to match the needs and expectations of ED clinicians. Methods: A 9-question online survey was sent to ED residents, fellows, faculty, and nurse practitioners/advanced practice providers at a major Northeastern academic medical center in the United States. For the open-ended section, coding and emergent theme categorization was conducted for quantification of responses. The survey was designed to evaluate the attitudes toward the structure, style, form, and wording used in reports. Results: The response rate was 48.6% (68/140). The ED respondents were generally satisfied with radiology reports, their language, vocabulary, and clarity. They preferred the impression section to be before the findings in simple examinations and to stratify the reports according to emergency status for complex examinations. They did not like extended differential, hedge terms, and delayed reporting. Additionally, ED respondents recommended focused, fast reporting with considerable changes toward a more standardized report. Conclusions: This evaluation delivered a list of actionable recommendations. The top recommendation is to standardize reporting structure, style, and lexicon, in addition to being focused, timely, and brief.

scholarly journals 2485 Advancing research professionals through competency assessments

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 51-51
Author(s):  
Rebecca N. Brouwer ◽  
Denise Snyder ◽  
Deborah Hannah ◽  
Christine Deeter
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Industry Standards ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Career Growth ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Advancement Opportunity ◽  
Competency Assessments ◽  
Research Professionals

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Describe the framework for tier advancement of research professionals. Describe the various forms of assessments of competencies. How competencies are used to provide transparency into professional development opportunities. Discuss the results of the first tier advancement opportunity for research staff. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: These processes were developed at Duke, an academic medical center with over 2000 active clinical research protocols and 300 new clinical trials per year. Roughly 500 employees are categorized into tiered classifications, allowing them opportunities for advancement through competency testing. Approximately 10% opted for tier testing, and their results will be shared. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Competency assessments were developed for all 42 of Duke’s research professional competencies, some using 2 modalities of testing. Almost 12% of the research professionals classified in tiered positions opted to attempt the tier advancement process. Of those, 37 completed, and the vast majority reached their desired tier. Results by competency will be provided. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The use of objectively assessed competencies is an important step in the development of a workforce. By (1) maintaining alignment with industry standards for competencies, (2) holding staff to a high bar, and (3) offering a consistent approach to career growth, Duke is working to develop and maintain a workforce that supports high quality research.

Gender differences in career progress and satisfaction in an academic medical center

2002 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 95-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
JoAnn Manson ◽  
Beverly Rockhill ◽  
Margery Resnick ◽  
Eleanor Shore ◽  
Carol Nadelson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Career Progress
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document