Within the literature on decolonizing the curriculum, a clear distinction is frequently made between diversity and decolonization. While decolonization entails dismantling colonial forms of knowledge, including practices that racialize and categorize, diversity is a policy discourse that advocates for adding different sorts of people to reading lists and the staff and student body. As a team of staff and students, we are committed to decolonization, but we are also aware that within our discipline of political science, calls for diversity are more likely to be understood and accepted. We therefore bid for, and obtained, funding to conduct a quantitative review of our department’s reading lists in order to assess the range not only of authors, but also of topics and ideas. We found that male White authors wrote the majority of the readings, with women of colour authoring just 2.5 per cent of works on our curriculum. Our reading lists also featured disappointingly little theoretical diversity, with very little coverage of feminist, critical race or queer theory approaches, for example. We therefore used the standard methodologies and approaches of our discipline in order to point towards the silences and gaps that a decolonizing approach would seek to remedy. In this article, we explain our approach and findings. The project has been educational in the best sense and has disrupted hierarchical relationships between staff and students. It has helped us think more deeply about how data and research inform, and sometimes limit, change, as well as how the process of learning about how knowledge, including reading lists, is generated can support decolonization in itself.
Objectives
The objective of this study was to determine whether the addition of a case manager and a physician advisor to the observation unit would decrease the length of stay (LOS) of observation patients.
Study design
This retrospective, observational study for observation patients was conducted in 2017.
Methods
At a tertiary-care, medium-sized, urban, community hospital, the LOS for all observation patients in 2017 (2, 981 clinical decision unit [CDU] patients and 1,248 non-cohort patients) was studied. Interventions studied were the addition of unit-based case manager and physician advisor to observation patient treatment teams.
Results
Patients assigned to the CDU had a shorter LOS than scattered patients,
p
< 0.0005. After the data was controlled for changes in LOS on inpatients using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), none of the interventions resulted in statistically significant effects on LOS for CDU or scattered patients. Season, day of the week, the month of the year, and the presence of residents/medical students did not have any effect on LOS. Patients arriving at night had significantly shorter LOS than those arriving during the day or evening,
p
= 0.035 and
p
= 0.029, respectively.
Conclusions
Placing observation patients in a single unit is effective for decreasing LOS. The addition of case managers or physician advisors may not be an effective strategy to address the LOS. The presence of trainees does not hinder patient flow.
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.