Are residents nonbelievers of family-centered rounds (FCR)? Saying so would be an unfair conclusion to make after reading the study by Patel et al., 1 which examined stakeholder beliefs on FCR. The authors report that residents rate multiple FCR elements as less important than other stakeholders, including patients/families, nurses, and attending physicians. However, they also acknowledge the wide breadth of barriers all stakeholders encounter when implementing and maintaining FCR. We commend the authors for their dedication to FCR evaluation research as healthcare works broadly to improve the safety and quality of care our patients/families receive. However, the safety and quality of the educational environment FCR provides must also be examined.
A 5-year-old boy presented with fever, headache, fatigue, neck stiffness, and 2 episodes of nocturnal urinary incontinence, prompting a visit to the emergency department. He had experienced intermittent frontal headaches and leg and buttock pain for several months, which had worsened over the previous 2 weeks. His history was notable for a spinal hemangioma with vascular tract, but he was otherwise healthy. On examination, he was febrile and tachycardic. He held his neck slightly rotated to the right with limited range of motion in all directions due to pain. No focal neurologic deficits were noted, and sensation and deep tendon reflexes were intact bilaterally. He was able to bear weight on both legs. There was no spinal tenderness or limitation in range of motion of his back and hips. There were no cutaneous manifestations, including no sacral dimple. A complete blood count with differential revealed leukocytosis of 31.98 × 103/µL (78.6% neutrophils, 16% bands). C-reactive protein was elevated at 2.4 mg/dL (0-1 mg/dL), and serum electrolytes, liver function tests, uric acid, and lactate dehydrogenase were within normal limits for age. Blood cultures were obtained before admission. Here we present his case, diagnostic evaluation, ultimate diagnosis, and complications.
OBJECTIVES: Dissemination of rigorous, innovative educational research is key to inform best practices among the global medical education community. Although abstract presentation at professional conferences is often the first step, journal publication maximizes impact. The current state of pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) educational scholarship dissemination via journal publication has not been well described. To describe educational research dissemination after PHM conference abstract submission, we identified the publication rate, median time to publication, and median publishing journal impact factor of abstracts submitted over 4 years. METHODS: Abstract data were obtained from the 2014–2017 PHM conferences and organized by presentation type (oral, poster, rejected). PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and Google Scholar were queried for abstract publication evidence. We used logistic regression models, Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine the association of presentation type with the odds of publication, time to publication, and publishing journal impact factors. RESULTS: Of 173 submitted educational research abstracts, 56 (32%) were published. Oral abstracts had threefold greater and fivefold greater odds of publication compared to poster and rejected abstracts, respectively (odds ratio 3.2; 95% confidence interval 1.3–8.0; P = .011; odds ratio 5.2; 95% confidence interval 1.6–16.7; P = .003). Median time to publication did not differ between presentation types. The median journal impact factor was >2 times higher for published oral and poster abstracts than published rejected abstracts. CONCLUSIONS: Because abstract acceptance and presentation type may be early indicators of publication success, abstract submission to the PHM conference is a reasonable first step in disseminating educational scholarship.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.