Online learning for infectious disease fellows-A needs assessment

BACKGROUND: Online resources and social media have become increasingly ubiquitous in medical education. Little is known about the need for educational resources aimed at infectious disease (ID) fellows. METHODS: We conducted an educational needs assessment through a survey that aimed to describe ID fellows\u27 current use of online and social media tools, assess the value of online learning, and identify the educational content preferred by ID fellows. We subsequently convened focus groups with ID fellows to explore how digital tools contribute to fellow learning. RESULTS: A total of 110 ID fellows responded to the survey. Over half were second-year fellows (61, 55%). Although many respondents were satisfied with the educational resources provided by their fellowship program (70, 64%), the majority were interested in an online collaborative educational resource (97, 88%). Twitter was the most popular social media platform for education and the most valued online resource for learning. Focus groups identified several themes regarding social medial learning: broadened community, low barrier to learning, technology-enhanced learning, and limitations of current tools. Overall, the focus groups suggest that fellows value social media and online learning. CONCLUSIONS: ID fellows are currently using online and social media resources, which they view as valuable educational tools. Fellowship programs should consider these resources as complementary to traditional teaching and as a means to augment ID fellow education

Variability in student perceptions of mistreatment

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/148349/1/tct12790_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/148349/2/tct12790.pd

How do internal medicine subspecialty societies support clinician-educator careers? A qualitative exploratory study

Abstract Background Internal Medicine (IM) subspecialty professional societies can provide valuable community, recognition, resources, and leadership opportunities that promote career success. Historically, this support focused on clinical and research dimensions of academic careers, but educational dimensions have gained more attention recently. This study explores how IM subspecialty professional societies support their clinician-educator members. Methods Using a qualitative study with two phases, the authors collected information from each IM subspecialty society’s website about support for medical education. Using information from the first phase, we developed an interview guide for subspecialty society leaders. We used inductive thematic analysis to analyze interview transcripts. Results Website analysis identified various mechanisms used by several IM subspecialty societies to promote medical education. These included websites focused on medical education, dedicated medical education poster/abstract sessions at annual meetings, and strategies to promote networking among clinician-educators. Interviews with eight subspecialty society leaders about the professional societies’ roles with respect to medical education yielded four main themes: [1] varying conceptions of “medical education” in relation to the society [2] strategies to advance medical education at the society level [3] barriers to recognizing medical education [4] benefits of clinician-educators to the societies. Integrating these themes, we describe recommended strategies for professional societies to better serve clinician-educators. Conclusions We explore how IM subspecialty societies attend to a growing constituency of clinician-educators, with increasing recognition and support of the career path but persistent barriers to its formalization. These conversations shed light on opportunities for professional subspecialty societies to better serve the needs of their clinician-educator members while also enabling these members to make positive contributions in return.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/173626/1/12909_2022_Article_3287.pd

How do pharmacists select antimicrobials? A model of pharmacists’ therapeutic reasoning processes

INTRODUCTIONClinicians engage in clinical reasoning, comprised of both diagnostic and therapeutic components, when caring for patients. While diagnostic reasoning has been extensively investigated, relatively few studies have examined how clinicians make treatment decisions. Recent work has explored how physicians engage in therapeutic reasoning while selecting antimicrobials. However, understanding pharmacists’ antimicrobial reasoning is equally important due to their role in ensuring appropriate antimicrobial use. Therefore, we aimed to further our understanding of antimicrobial reasoning in pharmacists and compare their reasoning processes to physicians.METHODSWith a postpositivist orientation and using a general qualitative approach, we conducted semi‐structured interviews with hospital‐based pharmacists specializing in infectious diseases or other hospital‐based specialties. Participants narrated their thought processes while selecting antimicrobials for three case vignettes. We analyzed transcripts iteratively using a code book from a prior study of antimicrobial reasoning in physicians as a sensitizing framework.RESULTSParticipants included 11 pharmacists (5 infectious diseases and 6 noninfectious diseases pharmacists). Overall, participants’ responses reflected a three‐step reasoning process: Naming the Syndrome, Delineating Pathogens, and Selecting the Antimicrobial. Patient‐, syndrome‐, and system‐based factors interacted with drug characteristics to influence the selection of specific antimicrobial regimens.CONCLUSIONWe identified a framework for pharmacists’ antimicrobial therapeutic reasoning similar to physicians’ reasoning, with some nuances that may be attributable to the pharmacists’ role in medication review and antimicrobial stewardship. Application of this framework has the potential to aid in teaching, improve multidisciplinary care, and provide a framework for interprofessional communication.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/172005/1/jac51580.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/172005/2/jac51580_am.pd

Evaluating the risks of clinical research:Direct comparative analysis

Objectives: Many guidelines and regulations allow children and adolescents to be enrolled in research without the prospect of clinical benefit when it poses minimal risk. However, few systematic methods exist to determine when research risks are minimal. This situation has led to significant variation in minimal risk judgments, raising concern that some children are not being adequately protected. To address this concern, we describe a new method for implementing the widely endorsed “risks of daily life” standard for minimal risk. This standard defines research risks as minimal when they do not exceed the risks posed by daily life activities or routine examinations. Methods: This study employed a conceptual and normative analysis, and use of an illustrative example. Results: Different risks are composed of the same basic elements: Type, likelihood, and magnitude of harm. Hence, one can compare the risks of research and the risks of daily life by comparing the respective basic elements with each other. We use this insight to develop a systematic method, direct comparative analysis, for implementing the “risks of daily life” standard for minimal risk. The method offers a way of evaluating research procedures that pose the same types of risk as daily life activities, such as the risk of experiencing anxiety, stress, or other psychological harm. We thus illustrate how direct comparative analysis can be applied in practice by using it to evaluate whether the anxiety induced by a respiratory CO(2) challenge poses minimal or greater than minimal risks in children and adolescents. Conclusions: Direct comparative analysis is a systematic method for applying the “risks of daily life” standard for minimal risk to research procedures that pose the same types of risk as daily life activities. It thereby offers a method to protect children and adolescents in research, while ensuring that important studies are not blocked because of unwarranted concerns about research risks

The Digital Classroom: How to Leverage Social Media for Infectious Diseases Education

Social media (SoMe) platforms have been increasingly used by infectious diseases (ID) learners and educators in recent years. This trend has only accelerated with the changes brought to our educational spaces by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Given the increasingly diverse SoMe landscape, educators may find themselves struggling with how to effectively use these tools. In this Viewpoint we describe how to use SoMe platforms (e.g., Twitter, podcasts, and open-access online content portals) in medical education, highlight medical education theories supporting their use, and discuss how educators can engage with these learning tools effectively. We focus on how these platforms harness key principles of adult learning and provide a guide for educators in the effective use of SoMe tools in educating ID learners. Finally, we suggest how to effectively interact with and leverage these increasingly important digital platforms