The Psychiatric Emergency Research Collaboration-01: methods and results

OBJECTIVE: To describe the Psychiatric Emergency Research Collaboration (PERC), the methods used to create a structured chart review tool and the results of our multicenter study. METHOD: Members of the PERC Steering Committee created a structured chart review tool designed to provide a comprehensive picture of the assessment and management of psychiatric emergency patients. Ten primary indicators were chosen based on the Steering Committee\u27s professional experience, the published literature and existing consensus panel guidelines. Eight emergency departments completed data abstraction of 50 randomly selected emergency psychiatric patients, with seven providing data from two independent raters. Inter-rater reliability (Kappas) and descriptive statistics were computed. RESULTS: Four hundred patient charts were abstracted. Initial concordance between raters was variable, with some sites achieving high agreement and others not. Reconciliation of discordant ratings through re-review of the original source documentation was necessary for four of the sites. Two hundred eighty-five (71%) subjects had some form of laboratory test performed, including 212 (53%) who had urine toxicology screening and 163 (41%) who had blood alcohol levels drawn. Agitation was present in 220 (52%), with 98 (25%) receiving a medication to reduce agitation and 22 (6%) being physically restrained. Self-harm ideation was present in 226 (55%), while other-harm ideation was present in 82 (20%). One hundred seventy-nine (45%) were admitted to an inpatient or observation unit. CONCLUSION: Creating a common standard for documenting, abstracting and reporting on the nature and management of psychiatric emergencies is feasible across a wide range of health care institutions

The Danish-American Research Exchange (DARE): a cross-sectional study of a binational research education program

Abstract Background Most medical educational programs emphasize clinical observation or clinical skill acquisition, fewer focus upon research. The Danish-American Research Exchange (DARE) program, sponsored by the Lundbeck Foundation, is unique in that the medical student initiates biomedical research collaboration between Danish and US medical institutions. To achieve this, Danish medical students (DARE students) conduct binational mentored research projects while based in the United States for 10 months. In addition, DARE students are introduced to interdisciplinary thinking about how to develop ultra-low-cost healthcare interventions through the ‘$10 Challenge’. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of DARE alumni over five consecutive years (2015–2020, n = 24). Research metrics included completion of a research project, primary authorship, and co-authorship of publications. The number of publications, prior to and after the DARE program were enumerated. For the first four cohorts, graduation from medical school and acceptance or intention to enter a joint MD-PhD program also were assessed. Two focus groups were conducted using constructivist grounded theory. Discussions were transcribed, redacted, and coded using Dedoose software. Results DARE Medical students were 31.2 years (range 24–35), the majority were women (67%;16/24). The majority (17/24;71%) completed a first author publication in a peer-reviewed journal with a median of 3.9 per DARE alumnus. DARE alumnus reported increased proficiency in biostatistics, epidemiology, coding and public speaking as well as stronger research qualities in creativity, critical thinking, comfort in approaching scientist in both the US and Denmark (p < 0.001 for all). Qualitative key themes included: increased confidence, a deepening of research inquiry and linkage to a research network. Conclusions Preliminarily, this study suggests that medical students can initiate binational collaboration in medicine. Benefits include research productivity, intention to pursue academic medical careers, as well as positive impacts on motivation. This medical student-initiated research model lays the groundwork for using this model across other country pairs to promote binational collaboration

The Danish-American Research Exchange (DARE): a cross-sectional study of a binational research education program

Abstract Background Most medical educational programs emphasize clinical observation or clinical skill acquisition, fewer focus upon research. The Danish-American Research Exchange (DARE) program, sponsored by the Lundbeck Foundation, is unique in that the medical student initiates biomedical research collaboration between Danish and US medical institutions. To achieve this, Danish medical students (DARE students) conduct binational mentored research projects while based in the United States for 10 months. In addition, DARE students are introduced to interdisciplinary thinking about how to develop ultra-low-cost healthcare interventions through the ‘$10 Challenge’. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of DARE alumni over five consecutive years (2015–2020, n = 24). Research metrics included completion of a research project, primary authorship, and co-authorship of publications. The number of publications, prior to and after the DARE program were enumerated. For the first four cohorts, graduation from medical school and acceptance or intention to enter a joint MD-PhD program also were assessed. Two focus groups were conducted using constructivist grounded theory. Discussions were transcribed, redacted, and coded using Dedoose software. Results DARE Medical students were 31.2 years (range 24–35), the majority were women (67%;16/24). The majority (17/24;71%) completed a first author publication in a peer-reviewed journal with a median of 3.9 per DARE alumnus. DARE alumnus reported increased proficiency in biostatistics, epidemiology, coding and public speaking as well as stronger research qualities in creativity, critical thinking, comfort in approaching scientist in both the US and Denmark (p < 0.001 for all). Qualitative key themes included: increased confidence, a deepening of research inquiry and linkage to a research network. Conclusions Preliminarily, this study suggests that medical students can initiate binational collaboration in medicine. Benefits include research productivity, intention to pursue academic medical careers, as well as positive impacts on motivation. This medical student-initiated research model lays the groundwork for using this model across other country pairs to promote binational collaboration

Additional file 3 of The Danish-American Research Exchange (DARE): a cross-sectional study of a binational research education program

Additional file 3: Supplemental Table 1. Qualitative data from DARE medical student alumni collected at two focus group meetings. Appendix 1. References for publications of DARE Fellows and Alumni, 2015-2020, Cohorts 1-5

Additional file 3 of The Danish-American Research Exchange (DARE): a cross-sectional study of a binational research education program

Additional file 3: Supplemental Table 1. Qualitative data from DARE medical student alumni collected at two focus group meetings. Appendix 1. References for publications of DARE Fellows and Alumni, 2015-2020, Cohorts 1-5

A Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) of Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Validated by Clinician Ratings

Background:A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data.Methods:We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low–glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high–glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation.Results:The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals.Conclusion:The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments

A Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) of Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Validated by Clinician Ratings

Background:A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data.Methods:We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low–glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high–glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation.Results:The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals.Conclusion:The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments

sj-pdf-1-dst-10.1177_19322968221085273 – Supplemental material for A Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) of Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Validated by Clinician Ratings

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-dst-10.1177_19322968221085273 for A Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) of Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Validated by Clinician Ratings by David C. Klonoff, Jing Wang, David Rodbard, Michael A. Kohn, Chengdong Li, Dorian Liepmann, David Kerr, David Ahn, Anne L. Peters, Guillermo E. Umpierrez, Jane Jeffrie Seley, Nicole Y. Xu, Kevin T. Nguyen, Gregg Simonson, Michael S. D. Agus, Mohammed E. Al-Sofiani, Gustavo Armaiz-Pena, Timothy S. Bailey, Ananda Basu, Tadej Battelino, Sewagegn Yeshiwas Bekele, Pierre-Yves Benhamou, B. Wayne Bequette, Thomas Blevins, Marc D. Breton, Jessica R. Castle, James Geoffrey Chase, Kong Y. Chen, Pratik Choudhary, Mark A. Clements, Kelly L. Close, Curtiss B. Cook, Thomas Danne, Francis J. Doyle, Angela Drincic, Kathleen M. Dungan, Steven V. Edelman, Niels Ejskjaer, Juan C. Espinoza, G. Alexander Fleming, Gregory P. Forlenza, Guido Freckmann, Rodolfo J. Galindo, Ana Maria Gomez, Hanna A. Gutow, Lutz Heinemann, Irl B. Hirsch, Thanh D. Hoang, Roman Hovorka, Johan H. Jendle, Linong Ji, Shashank R. Joshi, Michael Joubert, Suneil K. Koliwad, Rayhan A. Lal, M. Cecilia Lansang, Wei-An (Andy) Lee, Lalantha Leelarathna, Lawrence A. Leiter, Marcus Lind, Michelle L. Litchman, Julia K. Mader, Katherine M. Mahoney, Boris Mankovsky, Umesh Masharani, Nestoras N. Mathioudakis, Alexander Mayorov, Jordan Messler, Joshua D. Miller, Viswanathan Mohan, James H. Nichols, Kirsten Nørgaard, David N. O’Neal, Francisco J. Pasquel, Athena Philis-Tsimikas, Thomas Pieber, Moshe Phillip, William H. Polonsky, Rodica Pop-Busui, Gerry Rayman, Eun-Jung Rhee, Steven J. Russell, Viral N. Shah, Jennifer L. Sherr, Koji Sode, Elias K. Spanakis, Deborah J. Wake, Kayo Waki, Amisha Wallia, Melissa E. Weinberg, Howard Wolpert, Eugene E. Wright, Mihail Zilbermint and Boris Kovatchev in Journal of Diabetes Science and Technolog