Abildtrupbrix4591

The field of data science has great potential to address critical questions relevant for academic medical centers. Data science initiatives are consequently being established within academic medicine. At the cornerstone of such initiatives are scientists who practice data science. selleckchem These scientists include biostatisticians, clinical informaticians, database and software developers, computational scientists, and computational biologists. Too often, however, those involved in the practice of data science are viewed by academic leadership as providing a noncomplex service to facilitate research and further the careers of other academic faculty. The authors contend that the success of data science initiatives relies heavily on the understanding that the practice of data science is a critical intellectual contribution to the overall science conducted at an academic medical center. Further, careful thought by academic leadership is needed for allocation of resources devoted to the practice of data science. At the Stanford University School of Medicine, the authors have developed an innovative model for a data science collaboratory based on 4 fundamental elements an emphasis on collaboration over consultation; a subscription-based funding mechanism that reflects commitment by key partners; an investment in the career development of faculty who practice data science; and a strong educational component for data science members in team science and for clinical and translational investigators in data science. As data science becomes increasingly essential to learning health systems, centers that specialize in the practice of data science are a critical component of the research infrastructure and intellectual environment of academic medical centers.Patient-provider communication is a hallmark of high-quality care and patient safety; however, the pace and increasingly complex challenges that face overextended teams strain even the most dedicated clinicians. The COVID-19 pandemic has further disrupted communication between clinicians and their patients and families. The dependence on phone communication and the physical barriers of protective gear limit nonverbal communication and diminish clinicians' ability to recognize and respond to emotion. Developing new approaches to teach communication skills to trainees who are often responsible for communicating with patients and their families is challenging, especially during a pandemic or other crisis. "Just-in-time" simulation-simulation-based training immediately before an intervention-provides the scaffolding and support trainees need for conducting difficult conversations, and it enhances patients' and families' experiences. Using a realistic scenario, the author illustrates key steps for effectively usinnversation; debrief; share reactions; and thank the trainee for their feedback and observations.During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the first author, then a fourth-year student at Harvard Medical School, was enrolled in a One Health clinical experience at Zoo New England where he was introduced to a transdisciplinary approach to integrate human, animal, and ecosystem health. Seeing the vast impact of the pandemic and knowing its roots as a zoonotic disease, he realized this approach was critical to his medical education and for preparation against future novel infectious diseases. Zoonotic diseases have been emerging into human populations with increasing frequency, leading to public health emergencies such as Ebola, avian influenza, and SARS. The SARS-CoV-2 narrative, starting in bats and then mutating through an intermediate host into humans, is another striking example of the interconnectedness between human, animal, and ecosystem health that underlies these infections. Preventing future pandemics will require a transdisciplinary One Health approach, and physicians should be prepared to participate in these discussions while advocating for One Health initiatives for the benefit of their current and future patients. Integration of One Health education into medical school curricula will also prepare future physicians for other complex and urgently important health issues such as climate change, antimicrobial resistance, and the impact of biodiversity loss. As the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic persist, education in One Health must become a priority; it is essential to break down the conventional disciplinary silos of human medicine, veterinary medicine, environmental health, public health, and the social sciences, so that future health crises can be prevented and mitigated collaboratively.

Competency-based assessment, using entrustable professional activities (EPAs), is rapidly being implemented worldwide without sufficient agreement on the essential elements of EPA-based assessment. The rapidity of implementation has left little time to understand what works in what circumstances and why or why not. The result is the attempted execution of a complex service intervention without a shared mental model for features needed to remain true to implementing an EPA assessment framework as intended. The purpose of this study was to identify the essential core components necessary to maintain integrity in the implementation of this intended intervention.

A formal consensus-building technique, the Delphi process, was used to identify core components for implementing an EPA-based assessment framework. Twelve EPA experts from the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands participated in this process in February and March 2020. In each Delphi round, participants rated possible core components on a scaleents identified in this study advances efforts to implement an EPA assessment framework intervention as intended, which mitigates the likelihood of making an incorrect judgment that the intervention demonstrates negative results.The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted medical research, pushing mentors and mentees to decide if COVID-19 research would be germane to the early career investigator's developing research portfolio. With COVID-19 halting hundreds of federal trials involving non-COVID-19 research, mentors and mentees must also consider the broader moral calling of contributing to COVID-19 research. At the time of writing, the National Institutes of Health had responded to the pandemic with significant funding for COVID-19 research. However, because this pandemic is a new phenomenon, few mentors have expertise in the disease and relevant established resources. As a result, many mentors are unable to provide insight on COVID-19 research to early career investigators considering a pivot toward research related to this disease. The authors suggest 4 ways for mentees and mentors to respond to the changes the pandemic has brought to research funding and opportunities (1) include COVID-19 research in existing portfolios to diversify intellectual opportunities and reduce funding risks; (2) negotiate the mentor-mentee relationship and roles and expectations early in project discussions-considering, as relevant, the disproportionate burden of home responsibilities often borne by early career faculty members who are women and/or from a minority group; (3) address any mentor limitations in content expertise; and (4) if the decision is to pivot to COVID-19 research, select projects with implications generalizable beyond this pandemic to other infectious outbreaks or to the redesign of health care delivery.