Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has required that hospitals rapidly adapt workflows and processes to limit disease spread and optimize the care of critically ill children. Design and Setting: As part of our institution’s coronavirus disease 2019 critical care workflow design process, we developed and conducted a number of simulation exercises, increasing in complexity, progressing to intubation wearing personal protective equipment, and culminating in activation of our difficult airway team for an airway emergency. Patients and Interventions: In situ simulations were used to identify and rework potential failure points to generate guidance for optimal airway management in coronavirus disease 2019 suspected or positive children. Subsequent to this high-realism difficult airway simulation was a real-life difficult airway event in a patient suspected of coronavirus disease 2019 less than 12 hours later, validating potential failure points and effectiveness of rapidly generated guidance. Measurements and Main Results: A number of potential workflow challenges were identified during tabletop and physical in situ manikin-based simulations. Experienced clinicians served as participants, debriefed, and provided feedback that was incorporated into local site clinical pathways, job aids, and suggested practices. Clinical management of an actual suspected coronavirus disease 2019 patient with difficult airway demonstrated very similar success and anticipated failure points. Following debriefing and assembly of a success/failure grid, a coronavirus disease 2019 airway bundle template was created using these simulations and clinical experiences for others to adapt to their sites. Conclusions: Integration of tabletop planning, in situ simulations, and debriefing of real coronavirus disease 2019 cases can enhance planning, training, job aids, and feasible policies/procedures that address human factors, team communication, equipment choice, and patient/provider safety in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic era.
Introduction: Despite its widespread application in medical education, belonging to a single community of practice does not reflect the overall experience of physicianeducators. Knowing how physician-educators find their way among different communities of practice (ie their landscape of practice) has implications for professional development but the limited description in the literature. In this longitudinal qualitative research, we explored how physicians who pursue graduate degrees in medical education navigate their landscape of practice.Methods: 11/29 physicians in one cohort of a masters in medical education programme were interviewed annually from 2016 (programme start) to 2020 (2 years post-graduation). We iteratively collected and analysed data, creating inductive codes and categorising coded data by mode of identification (engagement, imagination, alignment) and time. We organised narratives into time-ordered data matrices so that final analysis wove together mode, time and participant.Results: All participants consistently spoke of navigating their landscape of practice, which included the community created in the graduate programme; but that single community 'doesn't define the journey itself'. They shifted engagement from teaching individual learners to translating what they learned in the graduate programme to develop educational projects and produce scholarship. They shifted the imagination from relying on internal and external assessments to experience-inspired versions of their future self. And they shifted alignment from belonging to the graduate programme's community of practice, then belonging to different communities in their landscape of practice and ultimately focussing on communities that mattered most to them. Discussion: Physicians in a graduate programme in medical education navigated their dynamic landscape of practice by shifting how they engaged in medical education, as well as what they imagined and who they aligned with as physician-educators. Our work offers novel insights into how knowledgeability emerges through time as overlapping modes of identification.
Introduction Although once very uncommon, multiple primary malignant neoplasms (MPMN) are becoming an increasingly popular subject in medical literature. With 182,000 new diagnoses per annum, breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer amongst women in the United States. Colorectal cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in females, and the third in males worldwide. Methods In order to gather literature on synchronous and metachronous occurring breast and colon cancer, we searched PubMed using keywords such as 'colorectal cancer', 'breast cancer', and 'MPMN'. We searched through case reports, case series, clinical trials, letters to the editor, and retrospective series. We included any manuscript in English published between January 1990 and January 2019. The articles featured patients who had primary colorectal cancer with primary breast cancer. Articles featuring patients with more than two malignancies or malignancies other than colorectal and breast cancer were excluded. Furthermore, any metastatic cancers were excluded as well. This narrowed our search down from over 100 manuscripts to just four. Results Fortunately, the prognosis was found to be no different for these patients with MPMN assuming diagnosis and treatment are performed in a timely fashion. Additionally, it appears that although a patient with one primary cancer is at a greater risk for the development of a second cancer, it is still an odd phenomenon and thus an unlikely occurrence. Conclusion Detection of one cancer increases the odds of detecting another cancer. Hence, it is important to consider the possibility of a synchronous tumor in a patient with a newly diagnosed colon tumor, as well as to not only consider disease recurrence when following up post-resection.
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
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.