Cracking the Nut on LCME Standard 8.7: Innovations to Ensure Comparability Across Geographically Distributed Campuses

Problem: A large state university in the southeastern United States and state Area Health Education Centers (AHEC) collaborated to establish branch campuses to increase clinical capacity for medical student education. Prior to formally becoming branch campuses, two AHEC sites had established innovative curricular structures different than the central campus. These sites worked with the central campus as clinical training sites. Upon becoming formal campuses, their unique clinical experiences were maintained. A third campus established a curricular structure identical to the central campus. Little exists in the literature regarding strategies that ensure comparability yet allow campuses to remain unique and innovative. Intervention: We implemented a balanced matrix organizational structure, well-defined communication plan, and newly developed tool to track comparability. A balanced matrix organization model framed the campus relationships. Adopting this model led to identifying reporting structures, developing multidirectional communication strategies, and the Campus Comparability Tool. Context: The UNC School of Medicine central campus is in Chapel Hill. All 192 students complete basic science course work on central campus. For required clinical rotations, approximately 140 students are assigned to the central campus, which includes rotations in Raleigh or Greensboro. The remaining students are assigned to Asheville (25–30), Charlotte (25–30), or Wilmington (5–7). Chapel Hill and Wilmington follow identical rotation structures, 16 weeks each of (a) combined surgery and adult inpatient experiences; (b) combined obstetrics/gynecology, psychiatry, and inpatient pediatrics; and (c) longitudinal clinical experiences in adult and pediatric medicine. Asheville offers an 8-month longitudinal integrated outpatient experience with discreet inpatient experiences in surgery and adult care. Charlotte offers a 6-month longitudinal integrated experiences and 6 months of block inpatient experiences. Aside from Charlotte and Raleigh, the other sites are urban but surrounded by rural counties. Chapel Hill is 221 miles from Asheville, 141 from Charlotte, and 156 from Wilmington. Outcome: Using the balanced matrix organization, various reporting structures and lines of communication ensured the educational objectives for students were clear on all campuses. The communication strategies facilitated developing consistent evaluation metrics across sites to compare educational experiences. Lessons Learned: The complexities of different healthcare systems becoming regional campuses require deliberate planning and understanding the culture of those sites. Recognizing how size and location of the organization affects communication, the central campus took the lead centralizing functions when appropriate. Adopting uniform educational technology has played an essential role in evaluating the comparability of core educational content on campuses delivering content in very distinct ways

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background: Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. Methods: In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings: Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42·4% vs 44·2%; absolute difference -1·69 [-9·58 to 6·11] p=0·67; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5-8] vs 6 [5-8] cm H2O; p=0·0011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30·5% vs 19·9%; p=0·0004; adjusted effect 16·41% [95% CI 9·52-23·52]; p<0·0001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0·80 [95% CI 0·75-0·86]; p<0·0001). Interpretation: Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status